Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND INDUSTRY

Selective Assistance (London)

Mr. Harry Greenway:: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what regional selective assistance has been given in the past 12 months in (a) west London and (b) Greater London, and in respect of how many intended new jobs; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister for Industry (Mr. Tim Sainsbury): The locations identified are not at present designated as assisted areas and, therefore, projects in those areas do not qualify for regional selective assistance. The assisted area map is being reviewed.

Mr. Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend accept that we in Ealing respect his effort for jobs in the east London corridor, but ask him to remember west London? Is he aware that 10 years ago all the Hoover jobs were sucked out of Ealing and went to Scotland and Wales and that it has taken us 10 years to get jobs back on that site, which we did last week with the opening of a Tesco store? Will he try in any way that he can to give proper help to west London, and especially to Ealing where we can do with it?

Mr. Sainsbury: I am happy to assure my hon. Friend that I am looking carefully at the submissions from his London borough of Ealing and other west London boroughs. Those submissions will be carefully considered and the requests from west London will certainly not be overlooked.

Mr. Soley: Is the Minister aware that London has never before needed the special pleading that it now needs as a result of the Government's economic policies? Will he bear in mind the Engineering Employers Federation view about London, which I fully share, that the lack of an industrial base is at the root not only of Britain's economic problems but of those of west London and London in general? Until the Government take engineering and manufacturing seriously and put real money into them, as other countries do, we shall continue to have a weak pound and a weak economy.

Mr. Sainsbury: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is aware of the performance by British manufacturing industry and the extent to which it has improved not only its productivity but its output and, in particular, its exports over the past decade. He will be aware that manufacturing employment is important in London, but that it forms a

lower proportion of total employment than in most other areas. We shall certainly take account of unemployment in London and all other relevant facts when reviewing the matter.

Leicester

Mr. Janner: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will provide extra assistance for Leicester's traditional industries.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Technology (Mr. Edward Leigh): The DTI already has in place a number of schemes that are helping traditional industries and other companies in Leicester and elsewhere.

Mr. Janner: Is the Minister aware that those schemes are totally inadequate and that while in previous recessions Leicester's traditional industries—knitwear, footwear, hosiery and textiles—survived well, they now face catastrophe and high unemployment, and businesses are closing by the day? What practical measures, if any, do the Government propose to help pull those industries and those who work in them out of this misery?

Mr. Leigh: Leicester's economy has successfully diversified over the years and its unemployment rate is below the national and the regional average. The hon. and learned Gentleman did not mention in his usual litany of lament about Leicester that textile exports by one of Leicester's traditional industries jumped by 8 per cent. in the first half of this year to a value of £1·4 billion. He did not mention the measures in the autumn statement. We now have one of the lowest rates of inflation in the EC and the lowest rate of corporation tax. Those are the sort of measures that will promote business in Leicester, rather than the measures promoted by his party to allow secondary action and a minimum wage. I challenge the hon. and learned Gentleman to name one business man who is currently asking for a minimum wage.

Mr. Jim Marshall: May I ask the Minister to allow his blood pressure to come down a little? Does he accept that one of the reasons for the textile industry being able to export in the manner in which he has outlined is that it has been assisted by the multi-fibre arrangement? There is some concern in the local textile industry about the phasing-out of that agreement as part of the new GATT arrangements. Could he tell the House and the industry whether that phasing out period started at the beginning of the present GATT negotiations or whether it will commence when the new agreement as a whole is signed?

Mr. Leigh: The hon. Gentleman can be assured that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will ensure that there are adequate safeguards for the textile industry in the period until the GATT review is agreed. Over the years, the textile industry has successfully restructured and that is how we have ensured its record level of exports in the first half of 1992.

Pit Closures

Mr. John Evans: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to meet the chairman of British Coal to discuss the review of the 10 collieries threatened with closure.

The Minister for Energy (Mr. Tim Eggar): My right hon. Friend and I have meetings with the chairman of British Coal, as necessary, to discuss a range of coal industry matters.

Mr. Evans: Before the President of the Board of Trade next meets the chairman, will he publish the Boyd report and then demand of the chairman why he included among the 10 pits for closure five collieries, including Parkside in my constituency, which that report identified as profitable pits with a viable future in Britain's deep-mine industry? Will he also use the meeting to condemn the chairman of British Coal for his niggardly and Scrooge-like attitude in stopping the attendance payments to the miners at the 10 collieries?

Mr. Eggar: As I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows, as part of the review that is being carried out, Boyd has been engaged to give a full review of each of the collieries, both the 19 and the 21, and, as has already been made clear, that will be published as part of the review.

Mrs. Peacock: Is my hon. Friend aware that some of the 10 collieries have specialised markets for their coal—I think that it is called niche marketing in anybody else's industry—and that there is great interest from the private sector in purchasing some of the mines? Is he also aware that British Coal is refusing to give any information about the collieries and is therefore making it difficult for people to put in bids?

Mr. Eggar: I am very much aware of a point made by my hon. Friend, which has been made by a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House. This is a matter for British Coal, but it would not be appropriate for British Coal to be considering the sale or the licensing of pits in advance of either the statutory consultation period or the end of the review. Once that consultation period and the review have been completed, then, in the light of the review and the interest in the private sector, British Coal will have to consider how to respond. I dare say that, as a result of the review, the Government will make clear their position.

Mr. Tipping: When the Minister meets the chairman of British Coal to talk about the 10 pits, will he remind him of the commitment given in the House that the review will be open and honest? Given that commitment, why will not the Minister instruct British Coal to share with the work force the financial statements—the F23s—for those pits? If the work force are to be able to put up a case for keeping those pits open, they need the figures. If the Minister is open and honest, he should give them.

Mr. Eggar: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the matters to which he refers are the subject of a judicial review, so I must be careful about what I say. However, both my right hon. Friend and I have stressed that there must be full and proper consultation. It is our understanding that that is exactly what British Coal has pledged to do.

Mr. Cash: When can I have a reply to the letter that I delivered to the President of the Board of Trade on the day of the pit closure debate, in which I asked a number of questions that, as yet, remain unanswered? Will my hon. Friend let me know whether any Minister has signed a public interest immunity certificate to prevent the disclosure of information that is relevant not only to that matter but to both the Select Committee review and the Government's review?
Will my hon. Friend make certain that the response that I had from the Secretary of State for Wales in an intervention during that debate, that British Coal must prove its case, will be carried out to the letter, and that those completely failed consultation procedures will be sorted out so that we know that the people who work in those pits are being properly looked after?

Mr. Eggar: A reply to my hon. Friend's letter is on its way. [Laughter]. I may tell him and other hon. Friends that it may literally be in the post. A number of the issues that my hon. Friend raised, particularly with regard to Trentham, will be covered in the statutory consultation that is under way between British Coal and the unions. As to public interest immunity certificates, there has been a considerable degree of misreporting by the press in respect of the current judicial hearing, and I assure my hon. Friend that no such certificate has been signed by Ministers.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Does the Minister accept that many of the pits threatened with closure have substantial reserves? Does he agree that the cost of mothballing the pits would be between £3 million and £6 million a year, whereas the cost of reopening them would be about £400 million? Will the Minister ensure that an independent review of reserves will be undertaken and published before any pit is closed—and that if British Coal is not prepared to operate those pits, they should be offered to others who may be able to do so?

Mr. Eggar: I note the hon. Gentleman's remarks about mothballing, but the figures may be rather lower and rather higher, depending on the particular pit. Mothballing will be considered in the review, and I presume that the Select Committee on Trade and Industry also will examine that aspect.

Mr. Moss: Given that the electricity inter connector with France, through which we import huge amounts of subsidised French nuclear electricity, displaces the equivalent production of coal from the 10 pits in question, does my hon. Friend agree that it would be highly popular in coalfield communities and the country as a whole if that contract were renegotiated?

Mr. Eggar: That undertaking, which was entered into by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), has potential consequences for the amount of coal burn in this country and is bound to be considered as part of the review. I dare say that it will also be taken into account by the Trade and Industry Select Committee.

Mr. O'Neill: Does the Minister appreciate that there is widespread cynicism about the manner in which the 10 collieries appeared on the list? We know that negotiations about which collieries were to be included went on until 10 o'clock in the evening, or certainly until 4 o'clock in the afternoon—[Laughter.] I am sorry, Madam Speaker—I was thinking of another debate. Obviously the price was not high enough for a number of hon. Members who took part in the coal debate, as it was in the other debate. Seventy per cent. of Grimethorpe colliery's output does not go to the electricity industry, and that is true of 90 per cent. of Houghton Main's output. Betws produces anthracite and has no need to take account of the electricity generating industry. At least three of the 10 mines are completely independent of the electricity supply industry, so there is no reason why they should be


considered in any way uneconomic. They should immediately be reconsidered for inclusion among the 20 pits that are considered possible contenders for a long life in the coal industry.

Mr. Eggar: I do not know the source of the hon. Gentleman's information, but given the accuracy with which he put it across at the Dispatch Box, I am sure that it is inaccurate. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that Betws is an anthracite mine, and he will have noted the exchange between the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) and myself during the debate on pit closures. As to the two other mines, the hon. Gentleman may be correct in claiming that some of their output potentially goes to domestic and industrial markets rather than to generators, but a significant amount goes into the generating market. None the less, I can categorically tell the hon. Gentleman that when the statutory consultation period ends—I am sure that he accepts that it would not be right for British Coal actively to consider the sale of either the 10 or 21 pits in advance of the consultation period for the 10 or the review of the 21 mines—British Coal will remain responsible for licensing coal mines and must consider applications from responsible organisations seeking licences. That must of course be subject to the current statutory limitations. It is a complicated subject, but I note the hon. Gentleman's remarks.

Mr. Cormack: Does my hon. Friend realise that the answer that he has just given and that the answer that he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Moss) begs a central question: will those 10 pits be in a state to be taken over? We do not want to leave it until too late. Will he please assure the House that if at the end of the review the 10 pits are still up for closure, there will be an opportunity for them to be taken over in a working condition by private owners?

Mr. Eggar: I have heard what my hon. Friend said. British Coal has given a quite categorical assurance that the decision as to reopening will not in any way be influenced by any deterioration that may or may not have happened during the closure period.

Mr. John Evans: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Due to the highly unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply, it is my intention to seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment of the House at the earliest possible opportunity.

Export Credit

Mr. Raynsford:: To ask the President of the Board of Trade on what terms export credit guarantees are offered to British industry in respect of major south American countries.

Mr. Leigh: Short-term credit insurance is available from the private sector. ECGD medium-term cover, on credit terms of two years or more is available for British exports to Chile, Colombia, Venezuela and Uruguay. At present, medium-term cover is not generally available for other south American countries, but the position on individual markets is kept under regular review.

Mr. Raynsford: Does the Minister accept that the absence of export credit guarantee support in respect of Brazil and Argentina has severely prejudiced the prospects

of a world-beating firm that is based in my constituency—STC—which has sought to win an international submarine telecommunications contract in those countries? Will he review urgently the nature of the export credit guarantee scheme to ensure that British firms are no longer left at a disadvantage as against their overseas competitors, whose Governments give them far more effective support than ours do?

Mr. Leigh: The hon. Gentleman was kind enough to write to my right hon. Friend about the issue on 26 November. We replied to him yesterday. I hope that by now he has received the letter. I think that I see the hon. Gentleman nodding. What I said in that reply was that of course we keep all these matters under review. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that I have already intervened on behalf of STC and that I wrote to the procurement group of companies to see whether any help could be given to the company, for which it was grateful. To put the matter into context, £800 million of Brazilian debt and £150 million of Argentinian debt has been rescheduled. There has to be a real possibility of the debt being repaid. It does not help UK Ltd. if exports are not paid for. To ignore economic reality would, to quote the hon. Gentleman's article on the anaesthetised, torpid Labour party, be to sleepwalk into oblivion. We are not prepared to do that.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: May I draw to my hon. Friend's attention the fact that we are losing many opportunities in the major countries of Latin America, due to the lack of capacity and flexibility of the Exports Credits Guarantee Department? I draw his attention also to the major city of Sao Paulo in Brazil which has always used the River Tietê to get rid of its sewage, with very smelly consequences. It is looking to Britain, to the example of what we have done to the River Thames, as a means of improving the position. That gives great opportunities to British water companies and to British technology. May I ask my hon. Friend to ensure that Britain is at the forefront of this activity in Brazil?

Mr. Leigh: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The whole House recognises his expertise in south American affairs. The Minister for Energy, who is sitting on my left, met the governor of Sao Paulo last week. The competitive nature of ECGD generally has been improved by the additional £700 million of cover that has been obtained by the sterling efforts of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. Of course we shall keep these matters under review, but my hon. Friend will be aware of the difficult economic situation in Brazil.

Mr. Bell: The Minister has not yet answered the question put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford). He talked about competition from our European competitors—our European counterparts. Is it not a fact that their interest rates are lower than ours and that their time scales are longer than ours? As we now have the presidency of the European Community, can the Minister tell the House what initiatives have been taken within that presidency to bring those rates and time scales into harmony, in the interests of British industry?

Mr. Leigh: The Government continue to press ahead with initiatives in the EC and OECD to ensure that other agencies charge premiums that more closely reflect the


risk. In recent months, a number of agencies in Japan, France, the Netherlands and Belgium have announced increases in rates or have advised that they plan to do so.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: I recognise the generally excellent performance in the recession of British exporters to south America and elsewhere, but will my hon. Friend bear in mind the representations made by the CBI in "Making it in Britain" and by the Engineering Employers Federation in "Industrial Strategy"? Both ask for a more level playing field for export credit guarantees compared with their European competitors.

Mr. Leigh: I take my hon. Friend's point, but repeat my point: my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade are committed to promoting British exports. In the spring, they secured the major achievement of cutting premium rates in more than 50 markets, since when we have obtained another £700 million of cover. They constantly strain every nerve to promote British exporters and exports. I am sure that my hon. Friend will accept that in these difficult markets there must be some realistic chance of the product and export being paid for; otherwise the taxpayer will lose out considerably. There is about £4 billion worth of debt outstanding on ECGD.

Export Credits Guarantee Department (Civil Servants)

Mr. Michael: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proposals he has to secure the future and effective deployment of civil servants in the Export Credits Guarantee Department who were not affected by the sale of the insurance section to NCM.

The Minister for Trade (Mr. Richard Needham): I have endorsed the recommendations of the ECGD management board that there should be no major change to the distribution of functions between London and Cardiff for at least three years.

Mr. Michael: Will the Minister acknowledge that moving jobs from Cardiff to London—now or in three years' time—would be against the Government's policy of dispersing civil service jobs from London to the regions, Wales and Scotland? Will he confirm, first, that the 200 jobs in Cardiff are safe and, secondly, that they will remain in Cardiff in the long term?

Mr. Needham: When NCM took over the short-term credit arrangements of ECGD, everybody who wanted to move to NCM was given the opportunity of doing so. These 200 jobs are for staff who decided that they would not go to NCM. They were aware that there was bound to be a reduction in the number of jobs because some of their work was being taken over by NCM. The functions have been reviewed by ECGD. There will be a further small reduction, but the jobs will be there for three years, after which we shall reconsider.

Magnox Power Stations

Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on his Department's policy in respect of the potential for extension of the life of the seven Magnox stations.

Mr. Eggar: It is for the operators of Magnox stations to assess the practicality of life extensions, taking fully into

account the safety requirements of the nuclear installations inspectorate. The review announced by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on 21 October will consider the implications of the statutory obligation on electricity suppliers to purchase non-fossil power, including that from nuclear sources.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister of State aware that Nuclear Electric's latest annual report shows that almost two thirds of the subsidy to the nuclear industry goes to prop up the operations of the Magnox stations, which were described by the President of the Board of Trade in an answer in October as being "old and unsafe", and of advanced gas-cooled reactors? How can the Government justify spending £783 million a year of taxpayers' money to bail out and keep going an old and unsafe nuclear industry, when perfectly up-to-date and safe coal mines are paying the price and being carved out of the electricity supply market?

Mr. Eggar: The hon. Gentleman is referring in particular to the Magnox stations, the future of which will be covered by the review.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: When considering energy policy overall, will my hon. Friend not allow the very unfortunate events at Chernobyl, which not surprisingly raised considerable anxiety in the minds of the public, to colour our energy policy, and recall that nuclear power is the most enviromentally friendly power source?

Mr. Eggar: I have taken a careful note of what my hon. Friend said. Such issues will be covered by the review.

Mr. Beggs: Is the Minister aware that the high cost of electricity now poses a threat to the future viability of large energy users? How does he propose to help to reduce the high cost of electricity to large-user industries, whether future electricity is generated using Magnox or other means?

Mr. Eggar: I am aware that that is a matter for considerable concern to large users, both in the Province and in the rest of the United Kingdom. It is one of the issues that will be covered by the review, and we had received evidence, especially from Northern Ireland interests, by the deadline that expired yesterday.

Mr. Mans: Will the Minister confirm that the cheapest electricity on the grid comes from nuclear power stations, and that by keeping them going longer we can spread the decommissioning costs over a longer period? Will my hon. Friend also confirm that the safety standards in nuclear stations are higher than those in coal-fired power stations, and that their accident record is better than that of coal-fired stations?

Mr. Eggar: I hear what my hon. Friend says. Of course, safety standards are covered by the nuclear installations inspectorate. With regard to the statistics on the costs, it is true that Magnox stations have low current operating costs per kilowatt hour, but they have high front-end capital costs and high back-end decommissioning costs.

Mr. Miller: Is the Minister aware that trade unions representing workers in the nuclear industry have given their commitment in writing to support the future of the coal mining industry in this country, and that they and their coal mining colleagues want a strategic energy review to be published? Members of the House, too, want such a


review to be published and want there to be a stated strategy, in the interests of supply from all sources throughout the energy industry.

Mr. Eggar: I am aware of the concern expressed not only by the hon. Gentleman's constituents but by other constituents, especially those in the north-west, who are affected, especially with regard to their employment prospects, by the future of the nuclear industry.—

Mr. Miller: And by coal.

Mr. Eggar: And, of course, by coal. That is exactly why the review that my right hon. Friend is currently conducting will cover all those issues.

Mr. Batiste: If the seven Magnox stations were closed, and the Government maintained their commitment to controlling atmospheric pollution, would not there be a threat to several coal-fired power stations and the pits that they support?

Mr. Eggar: Undoubtedly one of the many issues that we shall have to consider in the review is the interaction between methods of electricity generation and the environmental obligations into which we have entered. I believe that my hon. Friend is saying that if we had less nuclear-generated electricity, and therefore more coal-generated electricity, there would be an impact on emission levels.

Iraq

Mr. Heppell: To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many trade missions to Iraq have been authorised by his Department involving Nottinghamshire chamber of commerce in each year since 1984.

The President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Michael Heseltine): There were two in 1984, one in 1985, two in 1986, one in 1988, one in 1989, and two in 1990.

Mr. Heppell: Is the President of the Board of Trade aware that one of the authorised participants in the mission in 1989 was Sheffield Forgemasters, which was clearly against the 1988 guidelines, the 1985 guidelines and any other guidelines that the President may feel are in fashion at the moment? If there was no ministerial approval, will the right hon. Gentleman take action against senior DTI officials for breaching the Government guidelines, or will he turn a blind eye, as he and three other Ministers did in the past, to innocent business men who were set up, fitted up, in British courts?

Mr. Heseltine: I do not see the gain involved for the hon. Gentleman in peddling a totally dishonest interpretation of what happened, presumably in an attempt to get some cheap publicity in his constituency.
The issues that the hon. Gentleman raised will be fully examined by Lord Justice Scott, and I look forward to the report.

Mining Equipment Firms

Mr. Bennett: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what Government assistance is currently given to United Kingdom firms that produce mining equipment.

Mr. Hinchliffe: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the future prospects for the British mining engineering industry.

Mr. Eggar: The size of the domestic market for the mining equipment industry is largely determined by British Coal. Prospects in export markets are reflected in the 38 per cent. rise in exports last year.
The industry is eligible for a wide range of Government assistance for exports, research and development, and new investment.

Mr. Bennett: Does the Minister agree that the mining manufacturing industry in this country has an extremely good record in terms of exports? Perhaps he could tell the House how much foreign exchange they earn. If firms such as Oldham Batteries in my constituency lose the market for their mining lamps and helmets, they will find it increasingly difficult to compete on the world stage without that home market, because they will not have the money to invest in keeping themselves at the forefront of technology. Does the Minister realise that when the Government destroy British coal mines, they also destroy an important part of our manufacturing base?

Mr. Eggar: I can confirm that the mining equipment industry has a good record. In 1991, it ran a positive trade surplus of some £46 million. It has been active in export markets.
When I was in China recently, I took the opportunity to promote British mining equipment there. There is no doubt that British mining companies have a good reputation. I am currently working with the Export Credits Guarantee Department to see whether we can support a major export drive in China with formal bank lines of credit to support its initiatives.

Mr. Hinchliffe: Is the Minister aware that since 1984 some 2,000-plus manufacturing jobs have been lost in my constituency alone? Many of those jobs were related to the export trade, and were directly earning for Britain. Does the Minister realise that when the Government destroy British pits, they also destroy the vital shop window that mining engineering companies need to display their products for the export market? What assessment have the Government made of the impact of the 13 October announcement on coal, especially as it relates to the export trade and mining engineering?

Mr. Eggar: I have had meetings with individual mining equipment companies. I had arranged another meeting with MECO a week ahead. Unfortunately, the Chairman of the Select Committee on Employment has asked me to attend that Committee, but we will be rearranging the MECO meeting. I am aware of the problem. I recognise that there is a role for the Government to play in assisting.

Mr. Luff: Will my hon. Friend confirm that representations from mining equipment manufacturers, such as MECO in my constituency of Worcester and in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown), will be taken fully into account during the review of the coal mining industry? Will he further confirm that one of the major fears of mining equipment manufacturers is that the significant subsidies enjoyed by German coal producers


enable German mining manufacturers to develop a home market, which enables them to enhance their penetration of export markets?

Mr. Eggar: My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff) kindly sent MECO's evidence to the review. That evidence will be considered as part of the review. I have met the managing director of MECO on at least two occasions. Indeed, he accompanied me on a visit to the United States to see his and Gullick's equipment in operation in United States mines.

Mr. Robin Cook: I have visited three of the coalfields that are at risk. The more I visit pits that have spent millions of pounds in orders to the British mining engineering industry and, as a result, can cut coal at a profit and at a competitive price, the more I marvel at the decision to close them.
What would the Minister say to the men at Markham, who, as a result of that equipment and their efforts, have doubled productivity in eight years? Why should that dramatic success be met by closure? Will the Minister invite his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to go with him down some of the pits? Will they see for themselves the orders that the pits provide to British industry? Will the Minister then answer the question for the men whose jobs are at risk?

Mr. Eggar: I imagine that the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) was referring to Markham Main. Of course, Markham Main is one of the pits that are covered by the statutory consultation period. The consultation will be genuine.
The Markham pit will be covered by the review. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that part of the review is a study by Boyds, which will be published. That study will make an independent assessment of the viability of the Markham pit.

Steel Production

Mr. Stevenson:: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the prospects for steel production in 1992 and in 1993; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Sainsbury: United Kingdom steel production totalled 11 million tonnes in the first nine months of 1992, equivalent to 14·7 million tonnes in a full year. The industry expects United Kingdom steel production in 1993 to be at the same level as it was in 1992.

Mr. Stevenson: Is the Minister aware that his response will be seen as another example of the Government's attitude towards industry, which reeks of complacency? In the light of the recent statement by the chairman of British Steel that up to 50,000 additional jobs could be lost as a result of this Government-inspired recession and of the dumping of cheap steel imports, especially from eastern Europe, into the European market, will the Minister in his capacity as President of the European Council initiate an immediate inquiry into the dumping of cheap steel imported into the European market? In view of the similarities, will he do the same for cheap, dumped coal imports?

Mr. Sainsbury: I am a little puzzled about how giving the facts about production this year and the forecast

production for next year could be complacent. We are well aware of the concerns about dumping. We also fully support the Commission's investigation into illegal state aids. We are working urgently with our European Community partners to explore what regime might be appropriate for the imports of steel from central European countries into the whole European Community from 1 Janaury next year.

Mr. Knapman: Will my right hon. Friend bear it in mind that nationalised, subsidised Italian steel firms have gained the orders for the supply of steel to all the works in the second Severn crossing, in addition to embroiling British Steel, which stands on its own two feet, in a trade war with America? Will my right hon. Friend please intervene, if not before tea, at least before dinner?

Mr. Sainsbury: I am well aware of the concerns of the industry about the contract to which my hon. Friend refers. My hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic has already written to the British Constructional Steelwork Association on that. My officials yesterday met the director of the association and explained the Government's present action to address those issues.

Mr. Barry Jones: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman of the £50 million losses announced by British Steel, of its 20 per cent. cut, of the loss of 500 jobs at Shotton steel works and of the closure of Brymbo steel works with the loss of 1,100 jobs? What precisely will the Minister do to prevent the dumping of east European steel in Britain and in western Europe? May I remind the Minister of the vital part steel plays in Wales? We have given our blood. We cannot lose any more jobs. We look to the Minister and to the Government to help our steel industry.

Mr. Sainsbury: I hope that hon. Members of all parties are aware of the achievements of the industry and of the dramatic improvements in efficiency which have made it, by all accounts, one of the world's most efficient steel industries. It would be nice to hear Opposition Members pay tribute to the achievement of the industry in increasing its exports again this year and for the first time achieving an export of more than 50 per cent. of its production.

Mr. Oppenheim: Will my right hon. Friend gently remind Opposition Members that when they were running British Steel with their hands-on industrial strategy, British Steel was the world's largest loss maker and our balance in steel products was £1 billion a year in the red? Now, our balance of trade in steel products is £1 billion a year in surplus and British Steel is the most productive and efficient steel producer in western Europe.

Mr. Sainsbury: My hon. Friend has made his point effectively. I can add that in 1979, it took more than 13 man hours to produce a tonne of liquid steel. That is now being achieved by British Steel in fewer than five man hours.

Mr. Hardy: Will the Minister look without delay into the trading position of the engineering steels industry, a large part of which is in my constituency, not least to ensure that we maintain our export record, especially in North America? Urgent consideration needs to be given to the matter.

Mr. Sainsbury: I share the hon. Gentleman's disappointment about the action taken on steel imports by the American authorities. Countervailing duties have been imposed, but, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the duties on British steel are somewhat less than those on most of the competitors.
I would say to the hon. Member that, as a highly efficient private sector company, British Steel expects to take its own commercial decisions, and the last thing it wants is to have the Government telling it how to run its business.

Manufacturing

Mr. Mudie: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to meet representatives of the Confederation of British Industry to discuss future prospects for the manufacturing sector; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Heseltine: Ministers and officials from my Department are in frequent contact with the Confederation of British Industry on a range of issues. I addressed the CBI national conference on 10 November.

Mr. Mudie: Given that in the 1980s, 1,752,000 jobs were lost in the manufacturing sector and in the 1990s, 668,000 jobs have already disappeared in manufacturing, will the President confirm that he is aware of the CBI projection, backed up by other sources, that those job losses will continue at least until 1994? Will he agree that unless those losses are stopped and reversed, there will be no possibility of a sustained economic recovery?

Mr. Heseltine: I agree that the CBI welcomed the Government's autumn statement, which was made with just the same intentions in mind that the hon. Member has referred to. The CBI welcomed the fact that we got rid of the car tax; that we increased capital allowances and reduced interest rates to the lowest level for 15 years, saving something like £10 billion a year from the costs of industry; that we preserved the capital programmes; and that we increased Export Credits Guarantee Department cover by £700 million. Those actions were a very considerable, determined step by the Government to help the policies the CBI wanted.

Mrs. Chaplin: Does my right hon. Friend share my irritation at the constant denigration of manufacturing industry in this country by Labour Members who ignore the fact that £90 billion of exports from manufacturing industry will go out this year? Will he agree with me that the lower pound means not only that the industry can increase exports, but that it can recapture home markets?

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend puts the case extremely well. The fact is that there is now considerable opportunity in export markets for British manufactures. Exports already are at an all-time high and they are set to increase further as a result of the opportunity. I also agree with my hon. Friend that Labour Members seek every opportunity to run down success, not only in manufacturing industry but anywhere they can find it.

Mr. Orme: Will the Secretary of State have a look at the Engineering Employers Federation's devastating critique of the Government's policy and the failure of the

Government to provide for manufacturing industry? Has he discussed it with the federation? Has he discussed it with the CBI? Does he not think that it is about time he did?

Mr. Heseltine: I spent some time last night reading the Engineering Employers Federation publication and I was delighted to see upon how many of their suggestions the Government have already acted.

Mr. Riddick: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the chattering classes, both in the media and the universities and sometimes on the Opposition Benches, talk about the importance of manufacturing industry, but one thing, for sure, that they do not want is for their children to go to work in manufacturing industry? Indeed it is fair to point out that very few Opposition Members have ever worked in manufacturing industry themselves, as I did.
Can my right hon. Friend tell me what steps the Government have taken to bring home to schoolchildren and students the importance of working in manufacturing and the fact that a good career can be had in manufacturing industry?

Mr. Heseltine: I agree with my hon. Friend, and the Government have taken significant measures during the 1980s to draw together manufacturing industry and the educational establishments in order to create just the improved atmosphere which he suggests.

Mr. Robin Cook: Does the President recall telling the "Today" programme in October that he was putting in place the basis of a strategy for industry? While he was reading the Engineering Employers Federation document, did he notice that the federation produced its strategy in six weeks? As it is now seven weeks since the broadcast, eight months since he took the job and nearly 14 years since the Government took office, just when will the right hon. Gentleman produce a strategy for industry?

Mr. Heseltine: The very successful conclusion of the EEF publication is that we have done so many of the things that it wanted us to do. We have done them because we had considered, perhaps even before the federation began to draft its report, the needs of manufacturing industry. I was delighted to see the warm reception that the autumn statement received from the CBI.

Assisted Areas

Mr. Willetts: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will now announce the conclusions of his review of the assisted areas map.

Mr. Sainsbury: The Government's intention is to announce the results of the review of assisted areas as early as possible next year, taking account of the outcome of the coal review and after the necessary clearance of the European Commission.

Mr. Willetts: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Will he confirm that the shrinkage of the defence industry is a factor which will be taken into account in his review? In that context, may I draw his attention to the compelling case for assisted area status put forward by Havant and Portsmouth councils?

Mr. Sainsbury: I am happy to assure my hon. Friend that any closures or job losses resulting from "Options for Change" will be fully taken into account, together with all


other relevant factors, in the review. I am also happy to assure my hon. Friend that the particular presentation to which he referred will be very carefully considered.

Mr. Barron: In the letter that the Minister sent to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury dated 1 September, he said that the mining communities would be seriously hit by the closure programme and he suggested, as he has just suggested, that assisted area status may help. Looking at those areas now, before the closures, does not the Minister believe that there are good economic grounds for them to have assisted area status now and not to have to wait until more coal mines are closed?

Mr. Sainsbury: We are looking at all areas and we are taking into account the current unemployment situation and any known changes, including the coal review to which I have referred, which might affect that situation. We want to arrive at a balanced map that properly reflects the priorities across the whole country. I do not think that it would be very sensible in that context to try to anticipate the outcome of the review in respect of any single area.

Mr. Hawkins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that while it would clearly not be wise, as he has just said, to anticipate the findings and the announcement of the redrawn map, one of the great strengths of assisted area status has been that areas that have benefited from it in the past have improved on almost all the criteria applied to the previous map? Will he note that areas such as mine in Blackpool have particularly welcomed the very careful analysis by Baroness Denton, my right hon. Friend's ministerial colleague in another place, of all submissions made by those areas?

Mr. Sainsbury: I am happy to assure my hon. Friend that the submissions received from his area and all others are being carefully considered by my officials. That is why we want to ensure that they are all taken into account so that we arrive at a fair new map that is right for the whole country and not just a review that takes account of one particular area.

Mr. Fatchett: Is not it significant that the first demand for assisted area status should come from an hon. Gentleman who represents a southern constituency? Is not that an indication of how the Government, having ripped out the heart of manufacturing industry in the west midlands and the north of England in their first recession, have now done exactly the same to once-prosperous London and the south-east of England? Will the Minister give a guarantee that if he is to create new assisted areas in the once-prosperous parts of the United Kingdom, he will not do that at the expense of the north of England, the west midlands, Scotland and Wales, because those areas still need regional assistance?

Mr. Sainsbury: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is joining the usual catalogue of criticism of British industry that we hear from the Opposition Benches. I am also sorry that he feels that some parts of the country should be prejudiced in favour of other parts. The objective of the review is to determine which areas fall within the approximately one third that most justify the additional assistance that is available in an assisted area. If that reveals areas in the south, which may have suffered from changes in employment as a result of the defence review and "Options for Change", it is surprising that the hon.

Gentleman should believe that those issues should not be taken into account and that they should be prejudiced at the expense of some others.

US Tariff Act

Mr. Faber: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has made to the United States Government concerning section 337 of the US Tariff Act.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs (Mr. Neil Hamilton): Strong representations against this discriminatory legislation have been made to the United States Government on a number of occasions by the British Government and by the European Commission.

Mr. Faber: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his reply and for the news that the European Commission is also now involved. He will be aware of the company in my constituency, Bath Scientific Limited, of Melksham, which has traded successfully in the United States for the past six years and which now finds itself unexpectedly subject to extremely expensive litigation, because of this legislation, brought against it by a competitor. Will my hon. Friend continue to press the American Government on this issue and do what he can for my constituents?

Mr. Hamilton: My hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Mr. Faber) has made strenuous representations on behalf of Bath Scientific, based at Melksham in his constituency. I can confirm that the British Government will continue to make the strongest representations to the United States Government to ensure that section 337 of the US Tariff Act is repealed. The United States Government have said that they will act as soon as the Uruguay round is completed. That is yet another reason for ensuring that the current GATT negotiations are completed successfully and as quickly as possible.

Mr. Rooney: Does the Minister accept that the United States, while in one arena preaching free trade, is in many ways the most protectionist economy in the world? Will he particularly note the 36 per cent. tariff on British textile goods that still destroys jobs in this country and take that into account when we reach the last stages of the Uruguay round?

Mr. Hamilton: It is a bit rich of Opposition Members, who are great supporters of import controls and protectionism, to attempt to castigate the United States for its protectionist policy. The hon. Member knows that our Government, of all Governments in the European Community, have been the strongest supporter of GATT, and we will make every possible opportunity available to advocate the cause of British industry and free trade.

Mr. Butcher: Does my hon. Friend recall that something like half of the total foreign earnings of the top 20 British manufacturers come from the North American market? At a time when some elements in Europe are becoming protectionist or anti-American, would it not be wise to consider new initiatives building on our right hon. Friend's undoubted success in GATT to reduce tariffs between the North American free trade area and the European Community, which would have immense benefit


for the economies of the eastern seaboard of North America and a certain large island off the western coast of Europe?

Mr. Hamilton: Important as we know the European Community to be, my hon. Friend is right to remind us of the importance of our trade across the Atlantic. I can assure my hon. Friend that, under my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, we have not lost sight of this important element in Britain's foreign earnings.

Technology Transfer

Mr. Connarty: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what investment programmes are planned to assist the development of new products arising from technology transfer programmes; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Leigh: The Department has a number of technology transfer and investment programmes directed at encouraging industry to address the development of new products.
To date there are no plans for further investment programmes.

Mr. Connarty: That is a very disappointing reply. Is the Minister aware that much of the breakthrough in fibre optics technology was developed in the research laboratories of the United Kingdom? Does he share my concern and that of the Scottish business community that 50 per cent. of those awarded doctorates in fibre optronics in Scottish universities are working in the research laboratory of one United States telecommunications manufacturer? Will he give us an assurance, or any indication, that he has any programme at all to ensure that he will do better in the development of future industries for this country than he is doing at the moment in defence of our traditional industries?

Mr. Leigh: Contrary to what the hon. Gentleman has implied, the United Kingdom spends about £3 billion a year on civil R and D, which is quite as much per head as

Japan. My own Department's programme amounts to about £100 million a year which is split between technology transfer—[Interruption.] It is no good the hon. Gentleman pointing his finger at me; he may learn something if he listens. One third goes on technology programmes, one third on pre-competitive research and one third on collaboration programmes. We have a programme which is effective and well targeted, but I am sure that, if the hon. Gentleman does not agree, the paltry two Labour Members who stood just now to announce that they had worked in manufacturing industry—unlike the rest of them—would accept that the best form of R and D is that funded and financed by industry itself.

Exports

Mrs. Angela Knight: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to increase support for British exporters; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Needham: Our plans for export promotion were set out in my export promotion strategy speech to the Institute of Export on Wednesday 25 November.

Mrs. Knight: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Does he agree that some of our European partners have not reduced their aid and subsidies to industry to the same extent as the United Kingdom, despite agreeing to do so? Will my hon. Friend continue to do all that he can to ensure that there is a truly level playing field so that excellent and competitive British companies are not disadvantaged in their trade in Europe?

Mr. Needham: Of course. The fact that we have reduced the value of the pound by 12 per cent., the fact that we are working toward a successful GATT round, and the fact that we are now working with industry in a partnership at local level, national level and overseas level mean that we now have in place just as good an export strategy as any other nation in Europe. It is high time that the Opposition read it.

Public Expenditure (Scotland)

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ian Lang): With permission, Madam Speaker, I wish to make a statement about public expenditure in Scotland.
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced the Government's expenditure plans in his autumn statement on 12 November. On the same day, I announced my decisions for aggregate external finance for local authorities. I am publishing today details of the council tax transitional relief scheme which will accompany the introduction of the council tax in Scotland next year. As a result of settling the final details of that scheme, I have been able to increase the level of aggregate external finance available for distribution to local authorities from 3·2 per cent., as previously announced, to 3·5 per cent. I am also able to announce how I propose to allocate the remainder of the resources available for my programmes in Scotland. As usual, a table summarising my decisions will appear in Hansard. Full details will be included in my departmental report, which will be published in February.
My right hon. Friend made it clear that the Cabinet had set a remit for the public spending round which would keep public expenditure under firm control. The resulting overall settlement has, as a consequence, been a tight one. Nevertheless, the net public expenditure resources available to me for allocation in 1993–94 amount to no less than £13·45 billion. That is around £1 billion higher than last year's settlement and the largest ever annual spending total available to my departments, not just in cash but in real terms.
Our commitment to continue to fund growth in the health service in real terms, year by year, is an important one. But this year, with a tight public expenditure settlement, that is a demanding target. However, I am glad to say that, despite the tight limits on total resources and the priority given to economic recovery, I have once again been able this year to make substantial provision for the national health service and to plan for real growth in its funding. In 1993–94 the health programme will amount to more than £3·75 billion of net expenditure, an increase of £151 million over plans for the current year, and a real terms increase of 1·4 per cent. At that level, expenditure on the NHS in Scotland will be 47 per cent. higher in real terms than in 1979·80. That amounts to an all-time record of £744 per head in Scotland.
In deciding the disposition of the reminder of my resources among my various responsibilities, my first priority this year has been to invest in Scotland's economic recovery and longer-term growth. The House is already aware of the additional £340 million economic package for Scotland announced as part of my right hon. Friend's autumn statement. The promotion of economic recovery is also at the heart of the expenditure plans that I am announcing today.
Provision of national roads over the next three years will enable the programme of investment which we published last year to proceed as planned. More than £233 million will be invested in 1993–94, a 2 per cent. increase in real terms over plans for the present year. In addition, there will be new opportunities for the private sector to invest in Scotland's transport infrastructure. Resources available for local authority roads and other transport

programmes, including forecast receipts from the European regional development fund, are expected to increase in real terms to £206 million.
The private sector-led local enterprise companies have a central role to play in promoting enterprise development, training and environmental recovery throughout Scotland. The LECs are actively encouraged to seek private investment and their strength is not accordingly to be measured solely by the level of their public funding. This year there has been understandable speculation that, to help fund other programmes, Scottish Enterprise's budget would have to be cut—a cut of 10 per cent. has been quoted in the press. It is true that the training budget, which represents Scotland's share of the funding for programmes in Great Britain, has fallen. It is none the less right in the present economic circumstances that the Government should back the LECs' development efforts with substantial resources. I am happy therefore to announce that the budget for the enterprise and environment functions of the Scottish Enterprise network will increase by £27 million in 1993–94 compared with plans for the present year. This is an increase of almost 11 per cent. in real terms.
In addition, the LECs are attracting an increasing share of the available grants from the European regional development fund which are additional to the expenditure allocations announced today. As a result the total cash resources available to the Scottish Enterprise network are expected to exceed the £455 million planned for the present year. Provision for Highlands and Islands Enterprise will be maintained at £78 million and is expected to rise to over £80 million once forecast ERDF receipts are taken into account.
In seeking to ensure that, within a tight overall settlement, the resources at my disposal should, so far as possible, be directed towards stimulating economic recovery, I have ensured that, across my programmes as a whole, my plans provide for gross capital expenditure totalling over £2·5 billion next year and an aggregate of £7·8 billion over the survey period. Together with European regional development fund grants, this enables a higher level of activity to be undertaken in real terms for 1993–94 than previously planned.
Spending on agriculture and fisheries is vital to the rural economy. Provision will increase in 1993–94 by some £141 million. That is 43 per cent. growth in real terms compared with plans for the present year. These increases reflect the outcome of agreement earlier this year on reform of the common agricultural policy, which switched the emphasis from commodity price support to direct payments to farmers.
Investment in education is the key to longer-term economic strength. The budget of the Scottish Office Education Department will be increased by 80 per cent. to nearly £1·2 billion next year, reflecting not just growth, but also my new responsibilities for the older Scottish universities and my new direct funding responsibilities for further education colleges in Scotland.
Adjusted for these transfers, provision for education will rise by 5 per cent. in real terms next year with further real terms growth thereafter. Scottish participation in higher and further education will be maintained at record levels following the substantial increases of recent years.
I am also able to invest substantially in a better environment. Expenditure on environmental programmes will amount to £485 million. Provision for the water and


sewerage programme over the survey period amounts to some £728 million. This represents a doubling in the programe over five years. Local authorities will be able to add to these resources grants obtained from the European regional development fund.
In housing, local authority expenditure on private sector improvement grants will increase by 1·5 per cent. in real terms while expenditure on council housing can be maintained at the level of expenditure per house provided for in this year's provisional allocations. The resources available to Scottish Homes represent an

£ million



1992–93
1992–93
1993–94
1994–95
1995–96



estimated outturn
planned provision
planned provision
planned provision
planned provision



gross
net
gross
net
gross
net
gross
net
gross
net


Central Government's own expenditure (including public corporations other than nationalised industries) and local authority capital expenditure


Agriculture, fisheries and food
337
331
304
300
444
441
490
480
530
520


Industry, energy, trade and employment
626
544
617
535
615
530
630
580
650
600


Roads and transport
431
431
418
418
406
406
420
420
440
440


Housing
1,031
668
1,040
665
1,020
664
1,050
700
1,060
710


Other environmental services
488
387
477
376
485
361
490
360
500
370


Law, order and protective services
432
406
429
403
470
448
480
460
500
480


Education
636
636
628
628
1,167
1,167
1,220
1,220
1,270
1,270


Arts and libraries
49
49
47
47
54
54
60
60
60
60


Health
3,761
3,643
3,725
3,615
3,888
3,766
4,060
3,940
4,200
4,070


Social work services
62
62
62
62
63
63
70
70
70
70


Other public services
222
180
222
180
222
185
240
190
240
190


Total Central Government and local authority capital
8,073
7,337
7,968
7,229
8,834
8,085
9,200
8,470
9,500
8,760


Grants from the European regional development fund
—
0
—
0
—
120
—
120
—
120


Central Government support to local authorities' current expenditure
—
5,203
—
5,198
—
5,207
—
5,420
—
5,590


Nationalised industries financing limits
—
32
—
32
—
35
—
—20
—
—20


Total expenditure within the Secretary of State's responsibility
—
12,571
—
12,458
—
13,446
—
13,990
—
14,450


Forestry Commission
—
99
—
99
—
94
—
100
—
100


TOTAL
—
12,670
—
12,558
—
13,540
—
14,080
—
14,550

Notes

1. 1992–93 and 1993–94 rounded to nearest £1 million. 1994–95 and 1995–96 rounded to nearest £10 million.

2. Figures may not add due to rounding.

3. Central Government support to local authorities comprises revenue support grant, grants to local authorities for specific purposes, and income from non domestic rates.

4. Provision for industry, energy trade and employment includes that for tourism.

5. Provision for agriculture includes £96 million (1993–94), £102 million (1994–95) and £148 million (1995–96) included in the MAFF/IBEA programmes in the autumn statement but which forms part of agricultural spending in Scotland.

6. Comparisons between 1992–93 and 1993–94 are affected by transfers to Education from DFE and grants to local authorities and to grants to local authorities from DSS in respect of higher and further education and care in the community.

7. For 1992–93 expenditure financed by grants from the European regional development fund was included in the relevant programme total.

Mr. Henry McLeish: Is the Secretary of State aware that, four days after his second anniversary in the post, when facing the longest recession since the 1930s, with business and consumer confidence at rock bottom, this statement does not begin to deal with the real issues facing Scotland? It will do nothing to allay fears about unemployment, to help boost the economy, or to improve the quality of public services.
increase of £31 million in its investment resources compared with this year's plans—a real terms increase of almost 7 per cent.
The plans which I have announced today provide for the highest ever level of funding for Scottish Office programmes. They permit continuing real improvements in the provision of public services. They provide a framework for jobs and economic growth. I commend them to the House.
Following is the table:
The casual listener today might have been forgiven for thinking that Christmas had come early. When we consider the sleight of hand, manipulation of the figures and the inclusion of enormous transfers from other Departments, a very different picture will be revealed, which will put a different complexion on what has been announced. Any statement on expenditure must be assessed against the fragile condition of the Scottish economy.
The Secretary of State claims that there has been a real terms increase of 4 per cent. The Treasury says that, if one excludes transfers, there has been only a 1 per cent. increase in real terms. Will the Secretary of State clear up that confusion and confirm that he set out to use a different set of figures in his press release on 12 November, which was not a presentation shared by the Treasury?
The Secretary of State has virtually said that money is flowing from the Scottish Office into every nook and cranny of Scottish life. In that case, why is there a cut of 5 per cent. in real terms for industry, a cut of 8 per cent. for roads and transport, a cut of 3 per cent. in housing, and a cut of 9 per cent. in other environmental services? The right hon. Gentleman can tell us when he responds why his figures simply do not add up. The tables are more accurate than the Secretary of State's rhetoric.
Secondly, the Secretary of State talked about a £340 million recovery package. Will he confirm that next year all that we will get is £23 million of housing investment by Scottish Homes, and that that is the extent of his £340 million recovery package? If that is so, it does not begin to address the key issues which Labour Members appreciate but which are constantly ignored by the Secretary of State and his complacent friends in the Scottish Office.
Thirdly, will the Secretary of State tell the House why he has surrendered on the Barnett formula? For 13 years we have been led to believe that that is quite important and that it had an impact on the quality of public services and the volume of expenditure. Now the Secretary of State would like us to believe that the Barnett formula did not mean a great deal. He should come clean and tell us what it means in terms of future funding and expenditure.
The real tragedy of the statement, stripped of its hype and hypocrisy, is that it will do nothing for jobs, nothing for unemployment and nothing to tackle homelessness and the rising crime rate throughout Scotland.
When unemployment has risen in the past two years by 23 per cent. to nearly a quarter of a million, why has no emergency employment programme been announced in the statement? Have the Government given up on the unemployed? Are they not concerned about the one in four young Scots between the ages of 16 and 24 who are out of work? Is the Secretary of State not concerned about the one in 10 of our working population who are also out of work? By their actions today, the Government have shown that they have no interest in the unemployed.
The chief executive of Scottish Enterprise is alarmed about what might happen to his budget, but today we have been treated to the simplistic notion that the Secretary of State is increasing the budget. Would the Secretary of State like to come clean and tell us about the training elements of Scottish Enterprise, which he conveniently forgot to mention in his statement and his presentation to the House?
Training is a crucial item of the budget and the statement. One quarter of training places have been lost in the past two years. Nearly 9,000 young Scots are without a youth training guarantee. Surely the Secretary of State should come clean on the extent of the cut because it is vital for young people and adults and for Scotland's economic recovery.
Will the Secretary of State also consider that, in Scotland, 12 people are chasing every vacancy?

Bankruptcies have increased by 280 per cent. in the past two years. Faced with all that, why is the industry budget being cut by 5 per cent?
We have had no better definition of insanity in public policy than this afternoon's statement. Problems are mounting by the day and the budget for investment is declining by the day. It simply makes no sense, and the Secretary of State should comment on that.
The Opposition are not convinced that Scottish Enterprise has a healthy future in the hands of the Conservative party. Budget cuts are being imposed, morale is at rock bottom, and we now see the appointment of another representative of that cosy clique of Conservative cronies, Mr. McKay, the chairman of Scottish Enterprise. When will that placement approach to politics in Scotland stop? We need people who will tackle the Scottish Enterprise budget problems properly and who do not have such close affinities with the Conservative party.
Another issue that did not surface in the statement was crime. Why has the crime rate increased from 900,000 in the past two years to more than a million, yet the statement specified no figure to show why—

Madam Speaker: Order. As crime was not specifically mentioned in the statement, I remind the hon. Gentleman that the procedure restricts him to questioning the statement.

Mr. McLeish: The law and order issue is contained in the table that accompanies the statement, so it is germane to the Scottish Office's current expenditure, Madam Speaker.
When a crime is being committed every 30 seconds in Scotland, we should have a response about what the Government intend to do about the rising crime wave. Have they simply given up once again on crime, which stalks our streets and houses in Scotland?
The final point that was not dealt with in the statement was that of homelessness, which is now at record levels with 39,500 households having registered with local authorities as homeless. Why is there no vigorous improvement in investment in house builds? It cannot be right that nearly 100,000 Scots, according to the Government's latest figures for the past year, are now without a home. Why, therefore, has 3 per cent. been cut from the housing budget in today's statement?
Local government expenditure is also crucial because, once again, tucked away in the tables accompanying the statement is a 3 per cent. cut in the cash going to local authorities. Will not that mean that the 1·5 per cent. pay issue will simply disappear and that we shall have a pay freeze? Will it not mean the underfunding of care in the community, and council tax being set at artificially high levels because of the meanness of Government funding? Is it not a potentially lethal cocktail to suggest that vicious capping of local authorities will accompany inadequate funding to ensure that council tax levels remain reasonable at the expense of services and jobs?
The statement is not worthy of the problems in Scotland. The Secretary of State well knows that, when the transfers from other Departments to the Scottish Office are excluded and when we consider the increasing need in housing, crime and the economy, the statement will receive


no support from the Opposition. I urge him, even at this stage, to reconsider the unemployed and to give them a priority which, until now, they simply have not had.

Mr. Lang: I know that figures are not the strong point of the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish), but he should take a closer look at the figures before making such comments.
I am glad that the Opposition have accepted my proposal that the Scottish. Grand Committee should meet to discuss the statement, because it covers many important issues that deserve debate. I assure the hon. Gentleman that my announcement, with all the real terms increases that I have listed, will lead to improved public services. There is no question of sleight of hand. For that, we look to the hon. Gentleman who, less than a month ago, suggested that the Government's spending on Scottish Enterprise was set to fall from £373 million to £340 million next year. The resources at Scottish Enterprise's disposal next year will be £455 million, which is rather different.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that capital allocations to local authorities would fall from £826 million to £810 million. The figure is likely to be nearer £900 million, so the hon. Gentleman has a bit of homework to do. He also questioned the unadjusted real terms increase—in other words, whether allowance was being made for the transfer of programmes to Scottish Office responsibility. Unadjusted, the programme expenditure increase is 5 per cent. in real terms, plan on plan. However, after taking out provision for higher education and care in the community, the increase is not the 1 per cent. that the hon. Gentleman suggests; it is a 2·7 per cent. plan-on-plan increase.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about Scottish Enterprise and about a cosy clique of cronies. Perhaps he was thinking of Monklands. He mentioned morale in Scottish Enterprise. He should speak to it following my announcement because it has had its enterprise and environment functions budget increased by £27 million, a rise of 11 per cent. in real terms. That returns Scottish Enterprise's total spend, after the reduction in the training budget to which I referred, to broadly the same level as for the current year. That is very different from the hon. Gentleman's figures.
The hon. Gentleman asked about roads and transport and suggested that there were cuts. The roads and transport programme will increase by 5 per cent. in cash terms and by 2 per cent. in real terms. The hon. Gentleman failed to take account of the European regional development fund share which will be allocated to those programmes in the year ahead.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the change in the Barnett formula. The updating of that formula took account of the population changes since it was introduced arising from the 1991 survey, thus bringing it back to the same broad level intended by the then Chief Secretary, Mr. Barnett. The impact on this year's total programme is about £12 million, which is less than one tenth of 1 per cent. of the total. Anyone who contrasts that with the £340 million package that I was able to secure outwith the block will begin to realise that I have secured about 10 times as much by that means.
The hon. Gentleman derided the £340 million package as though it had only one small component involving the Scottish Homes budget, but it comprises £70 million of resources in the current year for schools, hospitals, roads and a range of other areas which we have now spelt out

and published. It also includes the writing off of debt inherited from Scottish Homes' predecessors, and that will release about £70 million over the next three years. It also included the reduction of £68 million this year, carrying forward to future years, in Scottish business rates.
That is the emergency employment plan for which the hon. Gentleman called, and that and the more than £2·5 billion of capital spend will help to generate jobs and stimulate the economy.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about the law and order budget. We have not given up the fight against crime. That is why we are increasing the law and order budget by 11·6 per cent.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the substitute striker for the Opposition Front-Bench team, the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish), was offside for most of the game? He failed to understand or realise that in order to score goals he must make statements that will stick. Has the hon. Gentleman failed to notice how, since 1979, the Conservative Government have increased spending on the health service over and above the rate of inflation by 47 per cent.? Has he failed to notice that we are now spending much more on the environment, which has been targeted in the way that people want? Has he not noticed that the shift in emphasis on the way that Scottish Homes is to be financed will make a substantial contribution, especially in rural areas, to funding?
All that is against the background of a world recession. My right hon. Friend is to be congratulated, not condemned.

Mr. Lang: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is quite right to point to the increase in expenditure on the health service in Scotland of 47 per cent. in real terms since 1979–80. That is dramatic evidence of our long-term commitment to improving the delivery of public services. My hon. Friend might also have said that expenditure on health in Scotland is 24 per cent. higher per head than in England. My hon. Friend is also right to draw attention to the environment budget. He may like to know that the budget for Scottish Natural Heritage is being increased to £36 million, a 5 per cent. real terms increase over the current year. The Scottish Homes budget is also being increased. My hon. Friend will also be pleased to know that there is provision in these figures for expenditure of £4 million on raspberries over the next three years.

Mr. James Wallace: Can the Secretary of State confirm that there is no increase whatever in the Scottish Enterprise budget for this year? What guarantees can he give that the increase announced for the environment and enterprise will not have to be siphoned off to allow the training guarantees to be met? Will he confirm that there is no increase in the budget for Highlands and Islands Enterprise? How can he justify that given the loss of jobs at Ardersier, Nigg and Dounreay?
The Minister implied that there would be a make up from the European regional development fund. Have those figures ever before been included in the statement, or is it just that he needs to put them in to give a gloss to the statement? Is he aware that the loss of the Barnett formula will continue year after year and the one-off that he managed to secure this year as part of an overall United Kingdom package will not make up for that?

Mr. Lang: I am happy to reassure the hon. Gentleman. The Scottish Enterprise budget has been increased on enterprise and environment functions by 11 per cent. in real terms, which makes up for the reduction in the Scottish Enterprise share of the Great Britain training budget. As to the budget of Highlands and Islands Enterprise, that will be over £80 million next year, higher than it is this year, and it may be as high as £83 million or £84 million, depending upon how much ERDF resources it receives.
The hon. Gentleman said that ERDF resources had not been included in the past. On the contrary, they have always been included. This year, we have responded to Commissioner Millan's request that they should be seen transparently and separately. Therefore, they are published separately in the tables. That is why they are shown in that way.

Mr. Phil Gallie: I share with my right hon. Friend the despair that he must feel at times at the Opposition's constant gloom during statements. Once again, he has confounded—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question."]—he has confounded all of their expectations by increasing—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question."]

Madam Speaker: Order. Hon. Members are asking that questions be asked. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will ask a direct question, and I also hope that hon. Members in all parts of the House will be ready with their questions, not comments. I call Mr. Gallie to ask a question.

Mr. Gallie: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is great joy in Scotland at the continued drive towards the uniform business rate and the good use to which the £340 million mentioned in the Chancellor's statement is to be put? Will he join me in reminding Opposition Members that it was a Conservative Government who introduced the idea of the enterprise trusts in Scotland? Does he agree that there is a continuing commitment from him and his fellow Cabinet Ministers towards enterprise trusts?

Mr. Lang: I am happy to assure my hon. Friend of our continuing support for the good work done by enterprise trusts, working well with local enterprise companies. I am also grateful for his welcome for the business rates reduction of £68 million that I was able to announce for next year. That will bring to £348 million the resources put into bringing down business rates from the high levels set mainly by Labour-controlled local authorities to levels comparable to those in the rest of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Jimmy Wray: The figures used by the Secretary of State are misleading. If he were to tell the House the truth, he would have to calculate the figures going back to the level of 1978–79 prices. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities states quite clearly—

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman heard me say a moment ago that I am not open to debate and comments. I am interested only in direct questions.

Mr. Wray: Is it not the case that, since 1978–79, there has been a cut in revenue support grant of £47 million, totalling over the years £600 million, with a total cost cumulatively, accordingly to the gross domestic product deflator, of £1·8 billion overall?

Mr. Lang: Next year, the support that I shall give to local authorities through the aggregate external finance

will be £5·2 billion. That is a higher figure than ever before. It represents an increase of 3·5 per cent. over the current year.

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement. I assure him that, unlike Labour Members who came here ready to carp and criticise before they had even heard what he had to say, the people of Aberdeen will not be so dogmatic or blinkered, and will welcome the statement. Will he confirm, preferably in words of one syllable, that the statement sets out the largest amount of public spending ever announced in the House by any Scottish Secretary of State, not just in real terms or cash terms but in any terms?

Mr. Lang: I am happy to assure my hon. Friend that this is a record statement in every way. Coming as he does from Aberdeen, which has two universities, my hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that we have increased education provision by 5 per cent. in real terms, and our assumption for higher education numbers will increase from 100,000 this year to 107,000 next year.

Dr. Jeremy Bray: What consideration has the Secretary of State given to training programme cuts and their effects on Lanarkshire in particular? During the coming financial year, the training support for Lanarkshire steel workers received from European Community funds will expire. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the contribution to overheads will therefore bear heavily on the training provided for young people and for workers who have lost their jobs, who have never had the benefit of European Community funds?

Mr. Lang: I certainly recognise Lanarkshire's problems, which is why we have given special attention and resources to its interests, and why Scottish Enterprise and the Lanarkshire development agency have been specially funded. It is also why we have devoted resources to training in that area. We shall be able to continue to do so as a result of the increased funding that I have been able to generate for Scottish Enterprise, to top up the training budget that it receives as a result of the Great Britain training negotiations.

Dr. Bray: How much?

Madam Speaker: Mr. Kynoch.

Mr. George Kynoch: There are many things in my right hon. Friend's statement—

Dr. Bray: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order.

Dr. Bray: I believe that the Secretary of State's last words were lost.

Madam Speaker: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will repeat them for the sake of the Official Report.

Mr. Lang: As an afterthought, to answer the hon. Gentleman's sedentary question, I said that the apportionment for local enterprise companies will be decided later.

Mr. Kynoch: There are many things in my right hon. Friend's statement to welcome, despite the comments of


Labour Members, who clearly wrote their speeches before they heard it. There are real increases across the board, although the Opposition and the media predicted cuts. I particularly draw attention to the £31 million extra for Scottish Homes, which is a 7 per cent. real increase. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that an adequate proportion of that money will be devoted to rural, developing areas of population, such as my own constituency of Kincardine and Deeside?

Mr. Lang: I am glad to assure my hon. Friend that Scottish Homes pays great attention to the housing needs of rural areas, and I feel sure that its resources will be directed at that, as at its other priorities. Scottish Homes will also devote some £7 million of its budget to the interests of care in the community—another subject to which I know my hon. Friend pays much attention.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: At a time when 100,000 Scots are homeless, how can the Government justify their persistent refusal to give local authorities the resources to build sufficient houses and at the same time propose to spend up to £60 million of taxpayers' money on Windsor castle? Does the Secretary of State agree with me that it would be absolutely unjustifiable for the Government to cut legal aid to those on low incomes when the Chancellor of the Exchequer—who lives in a rent-free house and has a salary of more than £63,000 a year—is receiving legal aid from the taxpayer?

Mr. Lang: As to housing, my hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch) mentioned the 7 per cent. real increase for the budget of Scottish Homes. In addition, we announced £20 million as part of the package for 1992–93, from which £7·5 million will go to housing. Housing resources are, therefore, being effectively focused. Far from cutting the legal aid budget, we anticipate a 40 per cent. rise over the period of the survey.

Mr. David Shaw: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that ordinary Scottish people will benefit from the increased public expenditure in Scotland? In the Monklands district council area, much of the additional money seems to be going into the pockets of councillors and their families. Is my right hon. Friend aware that Monklands district council has approved legal fees to be paid—

Madam Speaker: Order. I am perfectly willing to hear a question on the statement from the hon. Gentleman, but only on that subject.

Mr. Shaw: I apologise, Madam Speaker, but I do not think that I was straying from the statement because—if I may finish the point—the decision was taken to spend money that my right hon. Friend has just announced is supposed to go to the Scottish people on legal fees to support a private action by Monklands district councillors. That would be an abuse of the money that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—

Madam Speaker: Order. I call the Secretary of State.

Mr. Lang: I am sure that the appropriate authorities will be able to investigate any misappropriation or wrongful use of resources by local authorities. However, I am pleased that local authority funding is increasing in the

way that it is and that, for example, the local authority capital spend on school buildings is going up from £74 million to £82 million.

Mr. William McKelvey: Several schools in Kilmarnock are crumbling because money is needed to repair them. How much of this money does the Secretary of State think will be directed towards that source? In general, how does he think that the life of the people in Kilmarnock will be improved by his announcement?

Mr. Lang: The allocation between authorities will be made in due course and the hon. Gentleman's anxieties will be set at rest. As to the improvement in the life of the people of Kilmarnock, I am sure that they will be pleased to hear that the advance works on the A77 should be able to start in 1993–94.

Mr. Brian Donohoe: Can the Secretary of State be more specific about the training budget? He referred to statements in the Scottish press about a 10 per cent. reduction, but, when asked, he avoided answering our question regarding the training budget for 1992–93.

Mr. Lang: The allocation of resources is a matter for Scottish Enterprise and the local enterprise companies. They can decide whether to reallocate resources or to apply operating surpluses to training, in addition to the existing budget. The youth training guarantee will be met. By levering in more private sector training resources—which is already happening, according to the survey carried out recently by the Confederation of British Industry—I would expect the funds committed to training in Scotland to continue to rise.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Has the Secretary of State really considered the problems of housing in Scotland? Has he considered how many local authority houses will be modernised and brought up to standard and how many new-build houses will be available as a result of this statement? What is the basis for university funding? Is it based on the Scottish population, or on the number of students that Scottish universities put through in a year?

Mr. Lang: The funding for university students is based on the number of students already in higher education and those anticipated to be in higher education. That number is anticipated to rise from about 100,000 this year to about 107,000 next year. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the specific housing figures that he requests, but the housing programme's gross capital expenditure will rise by £25 million more than was forecast.

Mr. Peter Atkinson: May I just—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order.

Hon. Members: The hon. Gentleman was not here for the statement.

Madam Speaker: Order. I have seen the hon. Gentleman rising to his feet for some time.

Mr. Atkinson: Thank you, Madam Speaker. [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. Do I understand that the hon. Gentleman was in the Chamber for the statement?

Mr. Atkinson: Yes, Madam Speaker, I was.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on another bright spot in the statement—the settlement amounting to £440 million for Scotland's farmers, which is 44 per cent. up on the previous settlement. That will be warmly welcomed by Scottish farmers. May I use this opportunity to draw attention to the bargains that can be obtained in my constituency's livestock marts, just across the border, and hope that Scottish farmers will make full use of them?

Mr. Lang: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for the close interest that he takes in Scottish matters as a result of his membership of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. He will be glad to know that funding for the suckler cow premium is expected to rise from £26 million to £37 million in Scotland.

Mr. Michael J. Martin: The Secretary of State will know that many visitors to Glasgow are impressed by the rehabilitation of the older tenements as a result of the sandblasting and re-roofing that was done with Government and local authority grants. Can he tell me whether the statement means that more money will be available for that type of work? Many young couples and elderly people in the older tenements suffer from rain penetration and dampness in those tenements. They want to remain in them, but they will need assistance if they are to remain in those parts of Glasgow where they have lived for many years.

Mr. Lang: Expenditure on private sector improvement grants will rise by 1·5 per cent. in real terms over 1992–93 plans. Provision for housing expenditure assumes that £63 million will be spent on special needs.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: If training represents hope for the present and growth for the future, why are not the Government, who are giving £1·75 billion in a straight subsidy to London Transport, adequately funding training in Scotland? Does the Secretary of State understand that this package is woefully inadequate, given the reality of unemployment and the infrastructure needs of Scotland? It will neither get Scots off the dole queues nor build up the nation's infrastructure. The right hon. Gentleman has simply let Scotland down once again.

Mr. Lang: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should reflect on the fact that our expenditure on training is two and a half times as high in real terms as that of the previous Labour Government, whom his party supported in office. Perhaps he will also reflect on the fact that a comparison of the programmes covered by the Scottish Office block with those in England shows that expenditure in Scotland is 30 per cent. higher per head.

Mr. John McAllion: Last year, the Secretary of State announced an increase in the specific grants to local authorities for police to £243 million, which allowed for an additional 200 police and civilian staff. What is the increase this year, and how many additional police and civilian staff will it allow for in the face of the crime wave that is sweeping the country—which seems to have escaped his notice?

Mr. Lang: We have increased law and order provision by 11·6 per cent., which will provide for police, prisons,

legal aid and other aspects. The details of the specific grants have yet to be decided, but I reassure the hon. Gentleman that we have approved an increase in police manpower in the current year and that we shall not give up on crime.

Mr. Norman Hogg: As the Secretary of State has collective responsibility for economic policy with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, will he say how he will tackle the horrendous problems of unemployment in Scotland, particularly among young people in the new towns? What changes does today's statement make to the funding of the five Scottish new towns, with particular reference to inward investment and the mechanisms that the Government use for that purpose?

Mr. Lang: The resources for Locate in Scotland, which encourages inward investment and is run jointly by the Scottish Office Industry Department and Scottish Enterprise, will be decided by Scottish Enterprise from the extra resources—up by £27 million, a real increase of 11 per cent.—that we have given for its enterprise and environment budgets. The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that we have budgeted for a real terms increase of 10 per cent. in expenditure on the infrastructure of new towns.

Mr. John Maxton: Does the Secretary of State believe that the money that he intends to spend on housing will do anything to help to solve the problems of employment in the construction industry or of dampness in housing throughout Scotland and of homelessness? If he does, will he ensure that a fair proportion of the money goes to Glasgow district council so that it can improve housing in south-west Castlemilk and lift the threat of demolition from tenants in the Hangingshaw area of my constituency?

Mr. Lang: Yes, I believe that, and I shall bear in mind the hon. Gentleman's representations.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: When funds are apportioned to the local enterprise companies, will the Secretary of State ensure that sufficient funds are given to Renfrewshire Enterprise so that its officials can deal with the massive problems generated by continuing high unemployment in Inverclyde, particularly in Greenock and Port Glasgow? Many of those unemployed people are highly skilled adults and youngsters; they have been denied employment. They deserve a better chance in life from a so-called United Kingdom Government.

Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman will know of the attention that we have given his constituency and its problems, not least in establishing an enterprise zone in the area. The budget of the local enterprise company is a matter for Scottish Enterprise, and I am sure that it will note his representations.

Mr. Ian Davidson: What hope is there in the Secretary of State's announcement for the people in my constituency who are experiencing difficulties? Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me what hope was offered in his statement to young people without work, to people in damp, badly repaired houses, and especially to the elderly, who live in constant fear of crime?


Does not he agree that his statement contained far too little to meet the real difficulties faced by people in my area?

Mr. Lang: The hope that those people can derive from my statement comes from the fact that we have made resources available for housing, for the Scottish Enterprise initiative, for education, health and roads, for the environment and for a whole range of other things. As a result of my statement, spending in Scotland will be about £1 billion higher in 1993 than it was in 1992.

Mr. Adam Ingram: Will the Secretary of State tell the House what sum has been allocated for the new towns' transfer of housing stock, with reference to the capital consents that will have to be applied to the transfer to local authorities?

Mr. Lang: That matter has not yet been decided.

Mr. Thomas Graham: Not long ago the Secretary of State said at the Dispatch Box that we needed £5 billion to improve water and sewerage systems in Scotland. Yet today's announcement makes it look as though we shall continue to need £5 billion to fix the environment in our country. Why has the right hon. Gentleman not fought to ensure that the people of Scotland have proper water to drink which complies with EC standards? Why has he not introduced measures to improve our sewerage systems?

Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman cannot have listened to my statement. I said that we were finding £728 million for water and sewerage over the survey period, including an increase of £16 million for the year ahead compared with the current year.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: As the Secretary of State has announced some increase for Scottish Homes but the planned outturn for housing this year is 11 per cent. above the projected provision for next year, by how much is the right hon. Gentleman cutting local authority spending on housing?

Mr. Lang: As I said in my statement, local authority expenditure on housing is being maintained on a per house basis. The hon. Gentleman is wrong to compare outturn with plan. The proper comparison is plan with plan.

Mr. Eric Clarke: Does the Secretary of State realise that he is being accused of, and is guilty of, the sin of omission? He has omitted from the statement many things that we would have liked to hear, one of which was community care. How much money is being allocated to community care—or is it now called care in the community, or hidden within some other nondescript phrase?

Mr. Lang: It was announced some time ago that the care in the community budget will be £41 million, £5 million more than was being spent in Scotland by other departments, plus a top-up of £20 million from the Scottish Office block, making £61 million. In 1994–95 we are planning for £106 million, and in 1995–96 for £158 million.

Mr. Michael Connarty: Does the Secretary of State really believe that he will get away with the sleight of hand on the housing budget? We have the absurd situation of the Secretary of State giving money to

local authorities theoretically to deal with homelessness, which means that between now and next March they will be scrabbling around for short-term solutions and buying short-term properties, while the statement announces a cut in real terms in the housing budget. Will the right hon. Gentleman admit to the people of Scotland that he has no long-term way of dealing with homelessness, because he will not give the local authorities the finance that they require to deal with homelessness by providing more homes?

Mr. Lang: I have already told the House that the homelessness budget was increased by £7·5 million within the current year, on top of existing resources. As I have also said, the Scottish Homes budget will increase by an extra £31 million next year, a 7 per cent. increase over and above the rise in the cost of living.

Mr. Malcolm Chisholm: Given that the outturn figure for health expenditure this year is £3·64 billion and that the figure announced for next year is £3·75 billion, is it not true to say that the increase in cash terms is barely 3 per cent.? Surely the Secretary of State realises that that is an inadequate figure which does not even cover general inflation, and totally ignores the facts that medical inflation runs at 2 per cent. higher than general inflation, and that 1 per cent. extra is needed just to cover developments in medical technology and the needs of an increasing elderly population.

Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman should have heard the figures that I gave earlier. We are increasing health expenditure, plan on plan on the direct comparison, by 1·4 per cent. We do not know what the final outturn will be in the current year, which we are only halfway through, but on present estimates there will still be an increase in real terms, over and above the rise in inflation, of 0·6 per cent.

Dr. John Reid: May I impress on the Secretary of State the desperate need for continued investment in Lanarkshire, especially in the Motherwell district? Although I and others welcome the increase in capital allocations for 1991–92, does the Secretary of State recall that those allocations were made before the closure of Ravenscraig? Will he examine with sympathy the case that has been presented for the five-year development plan by Motherwell district council? In that context, can he make a statement about progress on the upgrading of the A8 to motorway status? He will recall that, for very good reasons, the upgrading was postponed earlier this year. He promised that he would make a statement before Christmas.

Mr. Lang: We hope that the A8 may feature in the roads programme. The hon. Gentleman will be pleased by the upgrading of the A74, which should be close to being two thirds completed by the end of the next financial year. That will be of major importance to not just Lanarkshire but the whole of Scotland.

Mr. George Foulkes: Will the Secretary of State and his sycophantic acolytes come away from the Westminster world into the real world? If he does, he will see that the Ayr sewerage scheme is delayed because of his cuts, that the bypasses in my constituency are further delayed because of his cuts, and that Scottish Homes cannot put money into Dailly and Drongan because of his cuts. Does he realise that,


unless he gives an assurance that all those projects will go ahead in the coming year, his pretence to act as Santa Claus will wear thin?

Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman could not have been listening to a word I said. Over the next three years we will spend £728 million on water and sewerage. If the hon. Gentleman had listened to all the other increases in real terms that I announced across the range of programmes, he would have recognised that the extra £1 billion expenditure in Scotland for 1993–94 offers a real opportunity for progress.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Does the Secretary of State recognise the despair that the statement will cause in hospital wards throughout Scotland? In those wards nurses are so stretched that they are unable to take tea breaks, recovery is inadequate and patient health is at risk. Why will the Secretary of State not act on those matters?

Mr. Lang: The action that I will take is to say to the hon. Gentleman that this Government, with their 47 per cent. real-terms increase in health expenditure, have recruited hundreds more doctors and thousands more nurses than were employed by the Labour Government. The contrast between our achievements and the Labour Government's record of cutting nurses' wages and capital expenditure on the health service is dramatic.

Mr. Sam Galbraith: The Secretary of State said that £728 million will be available for sewerage over the next three years. How much of that money will be given to the Kelvin drainage scheme? Unless that scheme in my constituency is started immediately, we will not be able to fulfil the EC regulations.

Mr. Lang: I note the hon. Gentleman's representation. The matter will be borne in mind when it comes to apportioning resources.

Mr. Jimmy Hood: Does the Secretary of State accept that not one penny extra in real terms will be spent on housing, employment and health care? Unemployment will still incease in Clydesdale; the homeless will receive a poorer service from local agencies; and hospital lists will continue to grow. Is that not the effect of the statement? Frankly, it is a disgrace.

Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman is wrong on all three fronts. The budget for the enterprise and environment functions of Scottish Enterprise will increase by 11 per cent. in real terms; the budget for Scottish Homes will increase by 7 per cent. in real terms; and the overall health budget of £3·75 billion will increase by 1·4 per cent. in real terms.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: In the context of the budget for roads and transport, when will the Secretary of State be able to advise regional authorities of their allocation? That is especially important to those of us in the north-east and in the highlands of Scotland where communications are vital, especially against the background of the single market. Will there, for example, be additional funding to ensure the Fochabers bypass on the A96? Will the west highland railway line continue? Will the

Secretary of State go out fighting to ensure that Objective 1 is secured for the highlands and islands as that would have major implications for the infrastructure?

Mr. Lang: I am glad to be able to assure the hon. Lady that we are proud of our record of increasing trunk roads expenditure by 75 per cent. over the past five years, which is a 35 per cent. real terms increase. I hope that the A96 will be able to feature in our substantial roads programme over the next few years. I am glad to be able to assure the hon. Lady that the ferry schemes for the highlands and islands should be able to be maintained at the planned level of expenditure.

Mr. Barry Porter: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. I did not see the hon. Gentleman in the Chamber during the statement. Do I understand that he was in the Chamber?

Mr. Porter: I was, Madam Speaker. I do not think that you were looking. I was here throughout the statement.

Madam Speaker: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says as he is an honourable gentleman.

Mr. Porter: I am very much obliged to you, Madam Speaker. I came here under the naive impression that I was a Member of the United Kingdom Parliament—

Madam Speaker: Order. All hon. Members have a right to ask questions. I insist that, before they do so, they should have been in the Chamber and have had the courtesy to hear the statement. That applies in all cases.

Mr. Porter: I would not disagree with that statement, as you know, Madam Speaker.
Does the Secretary of State agree that, whatever he offers by way of public expenditure in Scotland, it is never enough and will never be enough for the Opposition? Does he also agree that the north-west of England deserves something similar? The north-west has twice the population of Scotland—and, on the evidence available, twice the intelligence.

Mr. Lang: I suspect that my hon. Friend is right in pointing out that, whatever we announced, it would not be enough for Opposition Members. This is a substantial increase in resources. We have directed it towards programmes that will bring maximum benefit to Scotland's economic prosperity.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: In all the agonies with the Public Expenditure Survey Committee round and the tight financial position that he faces, has it ever occurred to the Secretary of State that he could make a considerable saving? What is to be the cost of all the proposed local government reform? Would not it be better to say to Eastwood district council, which is the tail that is wagging this dog, "Forget it."? The rest of us cannot face the added financial burden and all the problems that my hon. Friends have described of yet another change in local government reform. It is all about the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart). He should be told that he is wrong.

Mr. Lang: Far from adding to the cost of local government, the evidence suggests that the reform of local government to a single-tier structure will generate substantial savings which could be as high as £200 million a year. However, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will


be pleased to know that we have managed to increase the arts budget next year, in spite of the costs that we bear in various areas, which will enable the new museum of Scotland to go ahead. We have also been able to authorise the extension to the herbarium and library at the Royal Botanic gardens.

Mr. McLeish: The discussion has been interesting and has shown a number of things. Will the Secretary of State now concede that there will be massive cuts in the training budget of Scottish Enterprise? Will he acknowledge that his statement means cuts in the road programme, cuts in industry, cuts in housing and cuts in other environmental services? Will he accept that, despite his trying to create today an illusion of progress, he has failed? Will he now accept that there is a real programme of work to be addressed which simply is not included in the statement?

Mr. Lang: I said that figures were not the hon. Member's strong point. They are palpably his weak point. The roads programme, far from being cut, has been increased by 2 per cent. in real terms. The industry budget is broadly where it was with the enterprise and environment components increased by 11 per cent. in real terms. The Scottish Homes budget is being increased by 7 per cent. in real terms. On the question of other environmental services, he might like to know that Scottish Natural Heritage and Historic Scotland budgets are both being increased by 5 per cent. in real terms.
This is a programme which is carefully targeted to generate the maximum advantage and improvement of public services in Scotland and the delivery of economic growth and the creation of new jobs in Scotland. I am confident that it will deliver its objectives.

Cammell Laird

Mr. Frank Field: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the proposed closure of Cammell Laird.
It is specific because only hours ago men and women who work there were told that their ranks would be attacked by wave upon wave of unemployment until July next year when the yard will close.
It is urgent because Cammell Laird is the foothold to the future, not just for my constituents in Birkenhead, not just for those who live in Merseyside, but in the north-west region generally. Without that centre of skill that foothold to the future will be denied to us.
It is important to remind the House that already in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms. Eagle) some areas already have an unemployment rate of 40 per cent. If this proposed closure goes through those rates will be compounded and it is an important matter because Cammell Laird is to British industry what a barium meal is to X-ray. It can highlight those aspects of national life which are life-threatening.
Today we are not only fighting for our jobs, but we fight to prevent another hammer blow against British industry. I seek the Adjournment of the House so that I and the friends of Cammell Laird in the House may begin the debate today and make a plea that the assets of this shipyard, which were bought from us taxpayers for a single pound, be returned and, secondly, that some of the very substantial profits that Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering Ltd has made in the past five years should be given as an endowment fund for a new company at Lairds.
We want in that debate to set out how we wish to attract the entrepreneurial skills so that there is a future rather than an end for Cammell Laird. We should like the opportunity in that debate to invite the Government to say how they would support us in that endeavour.
I do not need to remind you, Madam Speaker, representing the constituency that you do, what it is like for workers to be part of an industry and a firm that is dying around them. Today Cammell Laird has been told that it should quietly die in July. We have no intention of accepting that option. We seek your leave to move the Adjournment so that we can debate what that future will be. We believe it is right that that debate should take place and our plan for action given.

Madam Speaker: I have listened most carefully to what the hon. Member said and of course I have to give my decision without stating any reasons. I am afraid that I do not think that the matter he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order 20 and I cannot therefore submit his application to the House.

Points of Order

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, as a new and inexperienced Member I seek your guidance and a ruling. Is it not a contempt of this House for the leader of one of Scotland's principal parties, the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), to absent himself from one of Scotland's biggest statements of the year—the Secretary of State's annual expenditure statement?

Madam Speaker: Frankly, I did not hear what the hon. Gentleman said. [Interruption.] Order. I think he was being facetious and wasting the time of the House.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, while I appreciate the decision you have just given to my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) in respect of Cammell Laird, would it be possible to use your good offices to ask the President of the Board of Trade, who once posed as a friend of Merseyside, to come to the House at 7 o'clock this evening to make a statement and answer questions which are vital for our constituents on Merseyside and elsewhere?

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows full well that the Speaker has no authority to request or influence in requesting a Minister to come to the Dispatch Box. The situation is the other way round: a Minister informs the Speaker when a statement is to be made.

Mr. Barry Porter: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I risk mildly irritating you for a second time today. Further to the Standing Order No. 20 application made by my hon. Friend—and I use that term advisedly—the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) in relation to Cammell Laird, I accept your decision and I realise that you do not have to give a reason for that decision. However, might I ask as strongly as I can that, perhaps when you are taking a cup of tea, you might reconsider that decision in the light of the plea made eloquently, sensibly and with plenty of evidence by my hon. Friend?

Madam Speaker: I tell the hon. Gentleman and the House that I am not easily irritated. If I have a chance to have a cup of tea today, I will, as ever, take the Standing Order No. 20 application very seriously. I realise the seriousness of the situation.

Mr. Bryan Davies: Madam Speaker, my point of order is genuine and helpful to the Chair. You will recall the somewhat protracted exchanges that took place last week in respect of the proper use of Government and private money in the Chancellor's case to evict his tenant. Those protracted exchanges would have been brought to a much speedier conclusion which would have been helpful to our business if it had become clear early on that the Comptroller and Auditor General intended to examine the matter.
Has a Minister indicated to you that the Comptroller and Auditor General will also consider the use of important Government buildings for private purposes? In that regard, I refer to the use this morning of No. 11 Downing street for fund raising activities for the

Conservative party. Once again, that seemed to cross the line between public and private use. I have no doubt that exchanges on the matter in the House would be curtailed if we could be assured that the Comptroller and Auditor General will look into that matter to ensure that public moneys have been properly expended.

Madam Speaker: The use of official Government accommodation is a matter for hon. Members, who should pursue the matter with Ministers. It does not raise points of order for the Chair.

Ms. Angela Eagle: Further to the application under Standing Order No. 20 by my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), while I appreciate and respect your decision, Madam Speaker, would it be in order for me to ask you to look favourably on an application for an Adjournment debate on that extremely important issue given that the Speaker can choose one subject for an Adjournment debate a week?

Madam Speaker: I do not want to put myself in the position of encouraging hon. Members to make such applications to me across the Floor of the House because, if I did, I would have a rash of them. The hon. Lady had better leave it with me.

Mr. Tony Marlow: I am not sure, Madam Speaker, whether my point of order is genuine. No doubt you will put me right if it is not. I am a positive European which is why I have problems with the Maastricht treaty. Imagine my excitement when I discovered that there was a parliamentary group known as the positive Europeans. Knowing your interest in parliamentary groups, Madam Speaker, I went to the Library to find out about it. I was very excited because I was told that there were 75 members. When I went to the Library, I discovered that there were only five officers and one member. I am deeply concerned about that. Is it right and proper that people should say that there is a parliamentary group with 75 members when there are only five officers and the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett)? Is there something that you can do to clarify the matter because it seems that the House is being misled?

Mr. Ray Whitney: rose—

Madam Speaker: Is it further to that point of order?

Mr. Whitney: Yes, Madam Speaker. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) is deficient in knowledge, but I will certainly ensure that a copy of the list of 79 members of the Positive European group is placed in the Library. It was already available to the Press Association. I am sorry that my hon. Friend and his collegues are so ill-informed on that matter.

Madam Speaker: That is the most helpful point of order that I have had for some time.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

FIREARMS (NORTHERN IRELAND)

That the draft Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 (Amendment) Regulations 1992 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Boswell.]

Question agreed to.

Commercial Debt Settlement

Mr. Michael Bates: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide that commercial debts shall carry interest after a specified period; to require publication in annual reports of details relating to the settlement of debts; and for connected purposes.
I am grateful for the opportunity to seek leave to bring before the House statutory measures to protect small businesses from the late payment of bills. In presenting the Bill I would like the House to be aware of the key facts that have convinced me of the need for legislation of this nature.
It is estimated that small businesses, that is, those employing fewer than 20 people, which constitute some 97 per cent. of all businesses, are presently owed some £145 billion in unpaid bills. On average, it takes 81 days from the date of invoice for the average business debt in the United Kingdom to be settled. Since we are in the middle of considering matters European, I should point out that only we and Ireland do not have legislation to protect small businesses from the late payment of bills. The United Kingdom's record of an average 51-day settlement following the normal 30-day payment period compares with 28 days in France and 18 days in Germany, Norway and Sweden. This places British business at a clear disadvantage to their main international competitors. According to a CBI/Cork Gully report in January 1991, nearly one in five small firms were on the verge of going out of business because of late payment of debts.
In a recent debate on the Adjournment of the House, I addressed the problem of banks failing to pass on interest rate reductions to their small business customers. I acknowledge, however, that business overdrafts are only a symptom. The Bill that I seek leave to present to the House today tries to address the cause which, more often than not, is the late payment of accounts for goods and services. The Midland bank conducted a survey of its small business accounts and found that, on average, businesses were owed three times as much by their customers as they themselves owed to the bank.
The House will be aware that I am not the first to attempt to present a solution to this growing problem. My hon. Friends the Members for Newark (Mr. Alexander), for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates) and for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) have all brought these important issues before the House, and I am sufficient of a realist to acknowledge that I may not be the last. As far back as 1978 the Law Commission identified the problem. In 1982 my noble Friend Lord Stanley of Alderley moved an amendment to the Administration of Justice Act 1977, designed to ensure that the Law Commissioners' proposals of 1978 were fully implemented.
It is also true that these proposals have always been opposed by the CBI. I do not begrudge this because the CBI feels that it is protecting its interests—the interests of large and medium-sized businesses. I would, however, put it to the CBI that its true best interests lie in having a thriving small business sector which will compete for custom on the grounds of quality and service rather than on the ability to keep their heads above water the longest.
Many people have made suggestions which fall short of what I propose this afternoon. For example, why not allow VAT on purchases to be claimed when businesses have settled the accounts or invoices in question? This suggestion

contains a lot of common sense. However, with a VAT threshold of £35,000 it would not help the many small businesses which are not registered for VAT.
Some suggest voluntary codes of practice, and I acknowledge the role of documents such as the Government's leaflet "Prompt Payment Please" and the CBI's "Prompt Payers—A Code of Practice". From the fact that in 1986 privately owned business was owed £57 billion whereas in 1990 the figure had risen to £145 billion, an increase in real terms of almost 100 per cent., it is clear that this is not working. According to a survey by Dun and Bradstreet, only 5 per cent. of businesses are aware of these codes of practice.
Some say that it is up to the business itself to negotiate terms and conditions and to take businesses to court for late payment, but when a small business is desperate for work, as most are, and is offered settlement terms of 90 days only, what chance has it of levering a 30-day settlement period? It would only result in the contract going elsewhere. Moreover, what chance would the same small business stand of gaining repeat orders if it took the company to court? What chance has a small business man of taking on a multinational with its legions of commercial lawyers? None. That is why this Bill is so desperately needed by small businesses.
My Bill has four main provisions. It would establish a 30-day settlement period for contractual debts which would bring us into line with our main international competitors and ensure fair competition among suppliers on the basis of quality, service and price alone.
It would provide the right for statutory interest to be levied from the expiry of the 30-day settlement period. This would remove the financial incentive which currently exists for businesses to delay payment of bills.
It would establish a statutory rate of interest to be levied in accordance with judgment rates as laid down and amended from time to time by the Lord Chancellor. This would be fair, because the interest received on late settlement would be equivalent to that which would have been received had the matter been taken before the courts, and yet it would seek to avoid time-consuming and expensive litigation.
It would seek, through an amendment to the Companies Act 1989, to require all public limited companies to publish their settlement periods of accounts and invoices in their annual reports. This would open up the issue of prompt settlement to the scrutiny of shareholders and the public, and it would enable appropriate comparisons to be drawn.
I am grateful for the opportunity to present this Bill to the House. I believe that it is widely supported, inside and outside the House, as it is vitally needed by the businesses that it seeks to serve and whose interests it seeks to protect. I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Michael Bates, Mr. John Watts, Mr. John Sykes, Mr. Michael Alison, Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock, Mr. Peter Butler, Mr. Jonathan Evans, Mr. Raymond Robertson, Mrs. Angela Knight, Mr. Richard Spring, Mr. David Faber and Mr. Gary Streeter.

COMMERCIAL DEBT SETTLEMENT

Mr. Michael Bates accordingly presented a Bill to provide that commercial debts shall carry interest after a specified period; to require publication in annual reports of details relating to the settlement of debts; and for conected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 11 December and to be printed. [Bill. 93.]

Orders of the Day — European Communities (Amendment) Bill

Considered in Committee [Progress, 1 December].

[MR. MICHAEL MORRIS IN THE CHAIR]

Sir Russell Johnston: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. You have been exceptionally helpful in trying to enable us to conduct this debate in a reasonable and sensible fashion. Can you help in any way to overcome a problem which may become serious for all of us? As I understand it, you are quite circumscribed in the degree to which you can regulate the length of hon. Members' speeches. I understand that you can stop them for speaking away from the point—for example, talking about the north pole when they are supposed to be talking about Strasbourg. You can check hon. Members for being tedious and repetitious. However, for anybody who knows anything about the European Community, it is perfectly possible to speak about the European Community for days without being repetitious—absolutely for days without being repetitious. The only limitation is the state of the larynx and whether there is some water available.
On the actual management of the debate, I compliment you, Mr. Morris, on dividing it into subjects so that we can have a rational discussion, or a succession of rational debates. I am sure that the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) will not object if I relate that, as we came into the House by accident—pas hasard, if I may use that expression—together this morning, he remarked that, if one was called upon to speak about industrial, consumer, commercial, agricultural, and market issues, one could go on for a very long time and that, if one was not able to do that, one would be quite a duffer. We have a real problem. What do we do?
There are three ways of dealing with the problem. First, Mr. Morris, you could have a timetable motion. You might say that that has nothing directly to do with you and that it is a matter for the Government at some stage to decide—they may at some stage so decide, although we have a problem with majorities. There are Members of Parliament such as the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) who would consider such a motion out of order, that it would not be appropriate because we are dealing with a constitutional issue and would raise that matter with you. That is a problem.
The second way of dealing with the problem is for a closure motion to be moved by the Government or by hon. Members. There is talk that there might be a closure motion some time this evening—talk in the couloir. Let us suppose that the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) continues remorselessly, ineluctably, unrepetitiously—

Mr. Charles Kennedy: And boringly.

Sir Russell Johnston: "Boringly" is a word I did not use. Conservative Members might use it.

The proposal is brought to you, Mr. Morris, because you decide whether closures are appropriate. That would be very difficult for you, because only four hon. Members would have spoken, and no Labour Back-Bench Member would have spoken. That would be exceedingly difficult for you, despite the length of time for which the hon. Member for Stafford had spoken unrepetitiously, as I have said. That is a difficult matter.
Thirdly, you could have a time limitation by agreement, Mr. Morris. That is done, as we all know, by the 10-minute limit on speeches, but it has not, as far as I know, ever been used in Committee. It might even be precluded in Committee; I do not know about that. It might be considered for a Committee; I do not know about that. For example, hon. Members say, "Yesterday, I spoke, according to the record"—

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. The hon. Gentleman brings 28 years' experience to the House. Hon. Members, not least those who have had fewer than 10 years in the House, will have listened to the hon. Gentleman. He is right to say that tedious repetition is out of order, as indeed is irrelevance. Water is not supplied to keep hon. Members going, and I am afraid that there is no 10-minute limit.
However, we are making progress. Almost every hon. Member who has tabled an amendment in the first group has spoken. The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) has covered all his matters. I imagine that he will just about be winding up and that we can make progress and look forward to contributions from Back-Bench Members.

Sir Russell Johnston: Further to that point of order, Mr. Morris. I have raised, as far as I can remember, only three points of order in all my time in the House of Commons. [Interruption.] It is all very well hon. Members saying, "Hopefully." It is perfectly proper for you to hope that the hon. Member for Stafford will resume his seat in a short time. Unfortunately, it is true that, whatever his unique qualities, the hon. Gentleman is not the only hon. Member with loquacity, and others could imitate his capacity for speaking for two hours.
Therefore, will you speak to the Procedure Committee to see whether there is any way in which one could deal with that? You can check hon. Members for repetition. There is a stage at which one could speak at length without repetition, but one would be going beyond a cogent argument. Perhaps you might look into that.
Another point that you might consider, Mr. Morris, is whether you could talk to the parties or to the groups about a rational approach. Last night, I had a nightmare—

The Chairman: Order. I thought that, with the House rising at 10.30 pm, the hon. Gentleman would have had an early night. Sadly, there is no Procedure Committee at the moment, so I cannot report anything to it. The hon. Member for Stafford tabled no fewer than six amendments. He took rather longer than normal, but he has obviously now covered them. I travel in hope—one has to travel in hope in this job.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: rose—

The Chairman: Is it a totally new point of order?

Mr. Budgen: It is a new point of order, Mr. Morris.

The Chairman: It had better be a new point of order.

Mr. Budgen: I wonder whether you could give the Government an early opportunity to make a statement on the decision of the Bundestag, which, if I may say so, is of great importance—

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman has been a Member of Parliament long enough to know that I have absolutely no power to encourage the Government to make a statement about anything. Twice yesterday the hon. Gentleman raised bogus points of order. This is now the third bogus one. I am here to serve the House, but I want genuine points of order.

Mr. Roger Knapman: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. It is my understanding, and perhaps it is yours also, that the treaty has to be ratified by all countries according to their constitutions. Does that mean according to the constitutions pertaining at the day that the agreement was reached, or does it take into account the various amendments and variations now affecting certain other constitutions, which are beginning to look suspiciously like opt-outs? I wonder—

The Chairman: Order. That has nothing to do with me.

Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. You are, of course, a servant of the House, as we all are, and not of the Government. I was a member of the Procedure Committee. Will you confirm that there is no question of a time limit being fixed by the Chair? Is it not usual, certainly in respect of controversial matters and not only in the House of Commons but in Committee—and nothing could possibly be more controversial than the Bill—that hon. Members debate and explore the Bill?
It is foolish and wrong to say that that is filibustering. No doubt you will confirm that the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) was never out of order yesterday. He was exploring the details in the amendments. He was explaining his objections and putting forward proposals. He was very much in line with the amendments.
Would it not be wrong if the feeling grew that, because the Government wish the Bill to progress as quickly as possible, hon. Members should be under any pressure whatsoever to say that we will not consider the detail of a Bill which we believe to be of the utmost constitutional significance?

The Chairman: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but there are more than 650 Members of Parliament. I am not sure whether I could call every hon. Member on each amendment.

Rev. Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. As it is freely admitted that the Government have presented to us a Bill on which we find difficulty in dealing with matters relative to the ratification of the treaty, surely, in your defence of every hon. Member as Chairman, you should permit hon. Members who are within order to speak, especially as the Government have tried to curtail the debate as best they can by the way in which they have drafted the Bill.

The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman will have to wait to see how we progress. For the moment, we will start again on amendment No. 93.

Mr. Tony Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Morris.

The Chairman: Is it a new point of order?

Mr. Marlow: It is a new point of order, Mr. Morris. I am grateful to you, as usual. You have just said that it would be impossible for every one of 650 Members to participate in every debate on every issue. That is obviously so. But you realise, Mr. Morris, as do other hon. Members, that this legislation may change fundamentally and put at risk the very powers of the House. Many hon. Members feel deeply about it.
Obviously not every hon. Member will want to speak on every issue or every amendment, but you will be aware of the depth of feeling among hon. Members. You will also be aware that there is no desperate, tearing hurry to get the Bill on the statute book. Not even the Government want it until May 1994.

The Chairman: I think that the hon. Gentleman made that speech yesterday. I agree that it is a different day, but perhaps in future the hon. Gentleman could make different speeches on different days.

Mr. Tony Benn: On a point of order, Mr. Morris.

The Chairman: Is it a new one?

Mr. Benn: It is about the way in which a referendum might get on to the agenda.

The Chairman: We had points of order about a referendum yesterday.

Mr. Benn: It is a serious point. I spent most of the night considering how this might be done. One way in which it could be done would be to have a preamble to the Bill, declaratory in character, which said that, in view of the importance of the Bill, everybody should have an opportunity to express an opinion.
There is no preamble to the Bill. Preambles are in order. The preamble which I have in mind would not affect the weight of the Bill but would simply declare that it was a matter on which the public would have a right to express an opinion. I wondered, Mr. Morris, whether you would be ready to consider amendments to the preamble so that the issue of public consent may somehow be introduced into our debates. That is the point that I wanted to make.

The Chairman: The right hon. Gentleman will understand that I cannot read his mind. I should be grateful if he would put the amendment in writing. If something is in writing, I can consider it.

Mr. Ian Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Morris.

The Chairman: I hope it is a new one.

Mr. Taylor: It is, Mr. Morris. Clearly it would be impossible for you to read anyone's mind, including that of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), on the point of a referendum. The decision must be for you when he presents the amendment in writing.
Would you note that there have been many rulings in the House that a referendum attached to a Bill such as this would not be part of the legislative proceedings, and, indeed, could cause constitutional problems? The purpose of the House is to go through a Bill such as this in


Committee. That is why we are a parliamentary democracy. Many of us feel that a referendum is not appropriate in those circumstances.

The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman made that point yesterday. There is little point in hon. Members making the same points of order, day in, day out.

5 pm

Sir Teddy Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. You kindly said yesterday, on a very important point, that it would be possible at any time for the Government to move a money resolution. As this is relevant to possible amendments and would help the Committee, can you say whether that would be in the nature of an amendment, or can you tell us how a money resolution would be placed in the Bill?

The Chairman: It would be for the Government to decide the right way to do it. There are various methods which they could use. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman talks to the Minister if he wishes to progress that. It is not a matter for the Chair.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. Can you give me guidance on whether there can be included in this section of the debate, since the Bundestag requires a two thirds majority—

The Chairman: Order. That is hypothetical. I have not called the hon. Lady yet. I call Mr. Cash on amendment No. 93, to which he has already spoken.

Clause 1

TREATY ON EUROPEAN UNION

Amendment proposed [1 December], No. 93, in page 1, line 9, after 'Titles', insert 'I'.—[Sir Russell Johnston.]

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

The Chairman: I remind the Committee that with this we are taking the following amendments: No. 108, in page 1, line 9, after 'Titles', insert

'I (except Article F on page 8 cm. 934)'.
No. 313, in page 1, line 9, after 'Titles', insert 'I (except Article E)'.
No. 344, in page 1, line 9, after 'Titles', insert 'I (except Article A)'.
No. 345, in page 1, line 9, after 'Titles', insert 'I (except Article B)'.
No. 346, in page 1, line 9, after 'Titles', insert 'I (except Article C)'.
No. 347, in page 1, line 9, after 'Titles', insert 'I (except Article D)'.
No. 348, in page 1, line 9, after 'Titles', insert 'I (except Article F)'.

Rev. Ian Paisley: On a further point of order, Mr. Morris. On the point made to you by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) about a preamble, are you suggesting to the Committee that, although we are on clause 1, you could take a proposition for a preamble to the Bill?

The Chairman: I am not suggesting anything. When I have something in writing, I can have a look at it; until it is in writing, I cannot.

Mr. William Cash: Last night, just before the Committee reported progress, I said that I was about to turn to article F3, which I had raised on a point of order earlier, but which I had not dealt with in my speech.
I am deeply concerned about the provisions of article F3, which incidentally are also covered by an amendment which has been tabled by the Leader of the Opposition. I think that due weight needs to be given to that.

Mr. George Robertson: rose—

Mr. Cash: I will give way, because I am always willing to play some kind of game with the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Robertson: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am not playing games, nor will I ask him a question which would prolong his speech. I simply repeat the point that I made yesterday. Amendment No. 108 in the names of my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition, other hon. Friends and myself is purely a probing amendment. At the appropriate time, we will seek the leave of the Committee to withdraw it. The hon. Gentleman should not read anything more into it than the fact that it is a probing amendment.

Mr. Cash: That is typical of the cowardly way in which the hon. Gentleman treats these matters. This is an important provision in title I. I will read it out:
The Union shall provide itself with the means necessary"—

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is getting into the well-known habit of reading from the Bill or a text. Hon. Members have read the treaty. All he needs to do is refer to the point and make his comment. He does not have to keep quoting from the treaty.

Mr. Cash: Indeed, Mr. Morris. As I have said, the union shall provide itself with the means necessary to carry out its objectives and to be able to carry out its policies. That is what article F3 says. If I happen to remember it, Mr. Morris, I hope that you will forgive me for repeating the point that I have already made.
When the article refers to "the means necessary", we are dealing with questions which go to the very heart of these matters. Will the money be made available to achieve the objectives of the treaty and carry out its policies? Will it require disciplinary action? For example, we know of a proposal that the European Court of Justice should be able to fine countries which do not comply with the requirements of parts of the treaty. Disciplinary action may not be just a question of a fine.
If the title includes such a vague provision, which is introduced under prerogative powers but is at the same time an international legal obligation, who is to say that it will not include in certain circumstances the use of force? What about the power to tax? In order to carry out a policy in line with an objective, and in order to be able to comply with that objective, money will be required. That raises another question which I raised earlier on a point of order, which is why and to what extent we are not being provided with a money resolution to cover these provisions. That is a very important point.
Furthermore, a booklet entitled "Europe after Maastricht" has been published by the Foreign and


Commonwealth Office as a memorandum to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs. I have made allegations that we have not been given the whole picture when, in the absence of a White Paper, there are documents like the notorious pamphlet written in Europe, which gives only half the picture.
"Europe after Maastricht" is not merely a pamphlet but a memorandum to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs which purports to describe Europe after Maastricht. What does it say? I shall not have to refer to the document, because I can remember that it states that article F provides for the implementation of the European convention on human rights and that European union shall subscribe to ensuring that national identities and democracies shall be sustained.
However, paragraph 10 of that important memorandum to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee does not mention the matter that I have just raised—the fact that the treaty says:
The Union shall provide itself with the means necessary
to ensure its economic objectives and to carry out its policies.
Some people might say that that is misleading. Why should not the attention of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee be drawn to that important provision? The pamphlet is going to be published for the public—in the absence of any White Paper—so why are such things left out?
The same argument applies to the pamphlet "Britain in Europe", which contains no reference to article F3. I included it in one of my amendments for that reason.

Mr. Terry Dicks: My hon. Friend is talking about giving information to the public so as not to mislead them. Perhaps he should explain why he voted in favour of Europe in the six votes before the Maastricht vote. He was in favour of passing all those pieces of legislation—including the exchange rate mechanism. I have heard a story that he wants to become a Member of the European Parliament. Perhaps he can clarify that for public consumption, so that we understand the background to his arguments.

Mr. Cash: I have no problem about that—I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his helpful intervention. I voted for the Single European Act because I genuinely believe in the European Community and want it to work properly. People want to participate in the processes of the Community because they want that Act to work properly. That is why I made recommendations to the Chairman of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry last year, to help it to look into the single market.

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is being tempted down a route that he should know better than to be tempted down. He should get back to the Bill.

Mr. Cash: I assume that that was a no ball. If I hit it for six, I can make sure that it is notched up on my score.

Mr. Ian Taylor: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that his view is far from unrepresentative of the people of Britain, who previously thought that all those Bills were a good idea and now realise that Maastricht will be the end of liberty and freedom? Does he appreciate that, instead of being attacked by hon. Members shouting from the Back Benches, he should say, "What I'm saying and doing is

what the people of Britain are saying—that this treaty is bad for Britain," and that the people want the right to have a say.

Mr. Cash: In opinion poll after opinion poll, 68 per cent. of the British people have said just that.

Several hon. Members: rose—

The Chairman: Order. No one has taken any vote anywhere yet on amendment No. 93. I ask the hon. Member for Stafford to make progress on his speech. He was making an important point about article F, and I think that the House wishes to hear it, rather than to hear him accepting diversions.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. I heard the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) talking about this, that and the other regarding the amendment. I was listening carefully. Then he was knocked off his subject by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks).
Are you saying, Mr. Morris, that, when hon. Members are challenged about whether they are pro-European or pro-Common Market, they are not allowed to answer, because that was what the hon. Gentleman was attempting to do? He gave an answer with which I do not agree, but he should be allowed to answer. If you want to stop the debate, stop him—but remember the people of Northampton.

The Chairman: Order. The people of Northampton remember me very well.

Mr. Skinner: They do not like Maastricht.

The Chairman: Order. I am enjoying it immensely.
I want to make it clear to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and all hon. and right hon. Members that the hon. Member for Stafford was straying beyond the intervention. Mr. Cash—back to amendment No. 93 please.

Mr. Cash: If I can deal with article F3—

Rev. Ian Paisley: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that no Member of the House has any right to impute motives to a Member of the European Parliament and say that, because he is an MEP, he cannot be against Maastricht? That is ridiculous.

Mr. Cash: I could not agree more. The issues we are dealing with in the treaty and in the Bill are essential to the future of this country. It is a slur to imply such things of MEPs and I regard it as disgraceful, but I shall get back to article F3 immediately, Mr. Morris.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who has made a comprehensive and distinguished contribution to the debate so far. I hope that I may assist him in ending on a high note.
Has he noticed that the provision of necessary resources in article F makes no mention of money and taxation? Nor is there any provision in the remainder of the treaty for the amendment of the treaty. Does it occur to the hon. Gentleman that many of those resources and powers might well be obtained under article 236 of the treaty of Rome,


and that those institutions might well expand their competence, powers and finances to fulfil the treaty of union—the two being close together?
I hope that the Minister who replies to this debate, after full consideration, will respond to my queries: first, on the amendment; secondly, on resources; thirdly, on relations with the treaty of Rome.

Mr. Cash: I am grateful for that intervention, which speaks for itself, and I agree with the basis upon which it was put.
Article F is an important provision in the treaty. I saw Chancellor Kohl on the television this morning, stipulating the basis on which the Bundestag is proceeding. It does not surprise me that he gave economic and political union as its vision for Europe. That is the basis for the provisions of article F3, which talks of the "means necessary" to achieve those objectives and to carry out those policies. Those policies are part of the union which is referred to in title I—economic and political union.
Furthermore, it does not surprise me to discover that the Bundestag has imposed another restriction on the powers of the German Government. It now insists on at least a two-thirds majority in both Houses of that Parliament to ensure that such provisions do not go through without its consent, and it will have a veto over a single currency. It is seeking to get that put back into the provisions—[HON. MEMBERS: "Illegally."] Yes, it is seeking to do so illegally. That raises essential questions on the money-raising powers of the union.

Mr. Rupert Allason: Does my hon. Friend agree that article F3 has the most dire political implications for this country? Is it not a paradox that the article is wholly inconsistent with the lack of a money resolution attached to the Bill? Does my hon. Friend agree that article F3 and the inclusion of a cohesion fund, which is all part of Maastricht, will have political, economic and financial consequences for every family in this country? Can he explain why there is no money resolution?

Mr. Cash: My hon. Friend is bang on the nail, as he always is, in both his public and his private life. No money resolution is attached to the provision because title I is dealt with under prerogative. Because it is not a part of the Bill, there will be no requirement for a money resolution.
Article F3 is representative of my main objections to the Bill, as it represents political and economic defeatism. It is a withdrawal of political responsibility and a denial of parliamentary accountability. For those reasons, I object to the treaty.

Mr. Peter Shore: The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) has made a useful contribution to the debate. He has opened up the subject matter of the treaties in a way that was not done by Front Bench spokesmen. Whatever may be said about the length of speeches, I believe that the hon. Gentleman has helped significantly our understanding of the treaties.
This group of amendments, more than any other that has been selected, enables us to focus on the treaty's nature, character and purpose, which has eluded discussion. We are all capable of talking about the minutiae and major provisions of the treaty, but the totality of the treaty—what it is about and what sort of

creature European union is—is at the heart of the debate. Ultimately, that will determine not only how hon. Members feel about and react to the treaty, but how our fellow countrymen outside the House will come to judge the treaty of Maastricht, this treaty of union.
Yesterday, several points were made about the Attorney-General's absence. I should like to reinforce those points because I believe that.we are faced, almost immediately, with the character and legal personality of the union that is being created by the treaty. It is not simply a further amendment, although it may partially take that form, of treaties with which we have become familiar, such as the European Community and various amendment Acts to that; it is a new creature—a European union.
I submit that it is the aim of the new European union to become a new state embracing the 12 existing member states of the European Community. I also submit that I am not certain whether the treaty's existing provisions create such a state, but there should be no doubt about the purpose. That leads me to the paramount issue facing us all: whether we are content to see our future as a province of a united states of Europe or as an independent, democratic nation state.

Mr. Winnick: Are not my right hon. Friend's arguments strengthened by article F, which contains the nearest reference to member states' national identities? Article F1 says:
The Union shall respect national identities of its Member States".
That is all that it says. There is no mention of respecting member states' national sovereignty or institutions. Surely that illustrates only too well what my right hon. Friend has said. The treaty takes the federal road, which will lead to one state whereby national Parliaments, including the House of Commons, will have little more power than county councils.

Mr. Shore: Furthermore, the phrasing of that paragraph—"the Union shall respect"—implies that that new entity, that superior body, will kindly respect nation states' national identities. That shows that a new creature of immense significance is facing our country.

Sir Trevor Skeet: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Shore: No. I would rather make some progress. I do not intend to conduct a lecture on the treaties because that would carry my speech far beyond the compass which it is fair to inflict on the House after the admirable speech that we have already heard. I am conscious of the fact that I am only the second Back Bencher to be called and it is important that many more hon. Members are heard in this significant debate. The Committee must have an opportunity thoroughly to decide what kind of treaty we are dealing with and what its implications are.
It is extraordinary that so many hon. Members—I am thinking in particular of the interrogation of the hon. Member for Stafford yesterday—fail to recognise that the Bill's purpose is to set up a European union and create a quasi state in the reasonably near future. We should understand that the House of Commons and the British public generally are totally out of tune with the thinking and discussions taking place on that issue in Europe today. It is only here that the assertion that a new state is being


created is being made, where the character of that state is open to discussion, and people seek to challenge it. Everywhere else in Europe it is taken for granted that we are at least talking about a federal union.
Naturally, I understand why so many people are anxious not to accept that reality. Those include the people who are most enthusiastic about that purpose. The federalists long to conceal their commitment to federalism and the unitarists long to conceal their dedication to a European union. We therefore get the pretence at every stage of the European Community's development that nothing significant is happening and that those great issues are not involved.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones): I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman but the "unitarists", as he calls them, throughout Europe have made it perfectly clear that they regard the Maastricht treaty as a significant setback for them. They have said so in public on numerous occasions.

Mr. Shore: That is frankly open to the greatest dispute. The Minister is not the only Member of this House who has had contacts with European leaders in the past two or three years, indeed in the past year. I shall give evidence of the difference of view in a few minutes.

Sir Jim Spicer: Is it not fair to say that Chancellor Kohl has said that the treaty is an essential step towards a united states of Europe?

Mr. Shore: Yes. That was quoted only yesterday in the speech by the hon. Member for Stafford.
What has eluded so many people in the country and the House has been the sea change in the Community's attitude towards federalism in the past two or three years. Federalism was always in the original treaties but it was a recessive rather than a dominant element. The dominant element was the view put forward, above all, by General de Gaulle about a "Europe des patries". That was the dominant view, but there was a great change and we should recognise it. It was the abandonment, by the French in particular, of a belief in a Europe de patrie following the reunification of Germany.
5.30 pm
One of the consequences of bringing down the Berlin wall and uniting east and west Germany was the abandonment by the French of that belief. They decided that they had to enwrap and enclose a united Germany in the bonds and other restrictions that they hoped a European federal treaty would impose upon an otherwise too powerful Germany. That is the basis of the whole change and if we do not understand that we shall not understand what is really happening.
I shall illustrate the point. In December 1990 on the eve of the opening of the IGC on political union a joint letter and communique was issued by Mitterrand and Kohl. They said:
We express the wish that the IGC…should establish the basis and structures of a strong and mutually supportive Political Union, which pursues firmly, and with the people in mind, the course that corresponds to its Federal Vocation.
The Commission opinion on political union which preceded that letter and communique by a couple of months refers without a blush to the course charted by the treaty of Rome leading eventually to a federal type organisation. Mr. Andreotti, at that time Prime Minister

of Italy, addressed the European Parliament on 22 November 1990. Speaking about the single currency, he said:
For the first time in the history of Europe we shall confer upon the Community one of the distinctive and essential competences on which national sovereignty is historically built.
That is fairly clear evidence of intent, but what about the European Parliament itself? A report of its Institutions Committee dated 21 May 1992 refers, continually of course, to the federal purpose and intent and describes how it sees the evolution to the next stage, perhaps the final stage. Dealing with the Council of Ministers, which after all is the one remaining instrument, as it were, of a non-federal character among the European institutions, the committee states:
Its development into a second legislative chamber in the sense of a genuine chamber of states and alongside the European Parliament must be accelerated, with the Council of Ministers becoming a standing body of the union, its meetings on legislative matters—being held in public"—
I agree with that,
and taking majority decisions with equal co-decision with the European Parliament, the qualified majority being redefined using new criteria…

Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): The right hon. Gentleman must remember as well as any hon. Member the immeasurable damage that was wrought in Europe by independent, competing foreign and defence and other policies. The whole of the past 50 years has been devoted to trying to find ways to achieve a different form of order in Europe that will avoid such damage. In view of his anxieties about the debate on the form of those structures, what are his alternative proposals for preventing Europe from again tearing itself to pieces?

Mr. Shore: Oh, really. The guarantee of peace in Europe and in the world over the past 40 years or more has been the existence of NATO of which we are a member. It would be absurd to pretend that our future security within a European union which excluded the United States and Canada would be better than it is now. Peace has been due to NATO's existence and the fact that there is no separate German high command. The hon. Gentleman should think about that. There is no possibility of France, Germany, Britain or Italy ever engaging in aggression against each other. I hope that answers the hon. Gentleman. I was not seeking to establish merits and demerits but to offer the Committee evidence of the nature and purpose of the current union treaty. The hon. Gentleman's intervention did not in any way disprove my contention.

Mr. Mike Gapes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that his definition of federal is different from that of the Italians, Spaniards and Germans? Government in Germany is greatly decentralised and the system was introduced with the support of the British and other occupation forces and the British trade union movement. That system was designed to be internally decentralised. Does he also agree that many people in other European socialist parties fail to understand Britain's peculiar obsessions with some historical feelings and words? Almost every other socialist party in Europe is in favour of the Maastricht treaty.

Mr. Shore: It is extraordinary that other European socialist parties are in favour of the Maastricht treaty and that they have agreed to a document which, apart from


anything else, inflicts by treaty deflation upon the whole of western Europe and undermines the central purposes for which democratic socialist parties exist. [Interruption.] I shall not be diverted because I wish to cover the subject in an orderly way.
My last piece of evidence in support of what I said about the nature and character of the treaty is to remind the Committee that the first article in the treaty, right down to Maastricht itself, speaks about the federal destiny or goal of the treaty. The Prime Minister was desperately anxious to have those words removed and at the last minute he managed to persuade Europe by saying, "If I have to take that back to Britain I shall be in desperate difficulty, not only with my own side but with the British people and the British Parliament."

Mr. Bowen Wells: The objective of France, Germany, Spain and Italy and other European countries was to create a federal union. However, the Maastricht treaty that emerged after the negotiations is far from being a federal treaty. It faced in both directions, but our Prime Minister managed to negotiate a treaty that is a step away from the federal objective.

Mr. Shore: I do not think so, but I shall certainly deal with that matter later in my speech. The so-called pillars, which I prefer to call buttresses of the treaty, go a long way towards European union. I accept that they have not gone as far as to be totally incorporated within the machinery of the Rome treaty, but there should be no doubt about what our partners are up to or that resumed pressure will fall upon us.
It is not only the sources that I have mentioned that give credibility, I hope, to my claim about the purpose and nature of the treaty. The other leaders of European countries are admitted federalists: they do not argue about it. The Prime Minister of Holland, Mr. Lubbers, is being considered, quite naturally, as a successor to Mr. Delors in the European Commission because he is a proper person for the Commission to choose. He shares every bit of the federal purpose, he wants it and wills it. So does Felipe Gonzales, the Prime Minister of Spain. We know from my quote from Mr. Andreotti's speech that that is also the purpose of the Italians. Beyond that there is a fringe of what one might almost call client states of Brussels which receive large subsidies and hope for even larger ones and are anxious to make progress with European treaties. We are in a difficult and isolated position, backed only by those stalwart people, the Danes.

Sir Russell Johnston: The right hon. Gentleman will understand that I agree with what he is saying, but does it lead him to conclude that title I should be inserted in the Bill? That is what the amendment is about.

Mr. Shore: The danger of inserting it into the Bill in the proposed manner—I hope that ingenuity can find a different way to deal with the treaty—is to make it a Community treaty; in other words, to make those parts that are not Community treaties into Community treaties and therefore even more binding and having even greater impact on our powers. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving us the opportunity, through the

amendment, to discuss the purpose of the treaty. However, I shall not be supporting him in his efforts to incorporate it, for the reasons that I have given.

Mr. Marlow: Is not the beauty of including, through the amendment, title I in the Bill that there will be further debates on Report and that whereas it might be helpful to the Committee that title I was in the Bill and made things clearer, on Report we could pass amendments to take certain parts of title I out of the Bill? Therefore, we could select those parts of title I that the House then thought to be the most appropriate.

Mr. Shore: I know that the hon. Gentleman has a liking for danger, but it would be a hazardous procedure to put in something that is clearly unwelcome in the hope that we may be able to remove it at a later stage.
Against this background of trying to define what the treaty purpose is about, I move on to the provisions of title I.

Sir Teddy Taylor: I have been listening to the debate and I cannot see what difference the insertion of title I will make. I have heard the Minister talk for an hour and I have heard Members of the Opposition talking. Apart from the psychological factor involved in that it will make us feel more European, will the insertion of title I make any difference to anyone, in Britain or in Europe? I shoud love to know the answer.

Mr. Shore: It would have not only a psychological but a practical and legal effect if it were included as one of the Community treaties.

Sir Teddy Taylor: How?

Mr. Shore: It would then come within the normal procedures of the Rome treaty and be subject to the European Court, the Commission and so on even more strongly than would the treaty as it stands. For that reason, I am opposed to the amendment.
I have made the case to establish the nature of the treaty because I believe that the articles in title I, from A to F, clearly spell out the federal intent. There is not only what it says about the union. It goes on to say:
This Treaty marks a new stage in the process of creating an ever closer union".
It is a "new stage", and not just another amendment to European Community Acts. That new stage is union.
The treaty then spells out the essence of the new stage. The first factor that it cites is economic and monetary union, and economic and monetary union, with a single federal bank and a single currency, is one of the most unifying of factors. According to Prime Minister Andreotti, previously that right has belonged only to a sovereign state, but now it characterises the new union.
Secondly, the treaty speaks of establishing a Europe without frontiers. Although frontiers can be a nuisance, I am fairly relaxed about them. To abolish them and to say that we are all part of the same zone in terms of the movement of people, goods and everything else is to abandon one of the essential purposes and powers of a separate state. We would pass that power over to a new state, which would define who and what has the right to come into our country. That carries me far beyond my interest in the proper movement of trade and goods and of people looking for jobs, finding them and taking them. Our rights are to be shared with over 300 million Europeans.
5.45 pm
Whether we like it or not, whether we have been consulted or not, whatever our views may be, we are now all to become citizens of the European union. Who has the right to claim citizens other than a state? What is the concept of citizenship? It would have been good to have had the Solicitor-General or another Law Officer here to answer some of those questions. Is not the very nature of the state the ability to create citizens or to have citizens? Citizens have not only rights but obligations and duties. Although this may appear to be a rather empty pillow case at the moment, before many Christmases are past, it will be stuffed with goodies by the European Commission and the Council of Ministers.

Mrs. Edwina Currie: On the citizenship point, what is wrong with the notion that, for example, the French people who live in my constituency and pay taxes to the local authority should have the opportunity to vote in elections for that authority, or that I, who have a cottage in France and pay taxes to the commune, should be able to vote in the elections for it? What happened to the idea that there should be no taxation without representation?

Mr. Shore: I have not mentioned those matters, nor shall I. Citizenship will confer rights on other Community nationals. It is not that these are particularly important rights but that they are to be conferred not by the British Parliament but by the European union as an authority. We must remember that, in the first instance, it will be offering only what appear to be attractive features. We have not yet reached the business of duties and obligations, which will be far less attractive.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: On this point about citizenship, inasmuch as the right hon. Gentleman has identified a political state—the union—of which the United Kingdom is a subordinate constituent, does not that demonstrate that United Kingdom citizenship becomes subordinate in those areas where that union has competence and over which the European Court therefore has jurisdiction? Therefore, is it not a reflection in support of his argument that British citizenship is a lesser thing than European citizenship?

Mr. Shore: I am not certain of the answer. That is another reason why we should have a legal presence on the Treasury Bench. I shall want to explore that point. There is a danger that that is so. We have to acknowledge the basic point that only states bestow citizenship.
Article B says that an objective of the union shall be:
To assert its identity on the international scene".
Again, that raises the question of whether it is a state, particularly as the assertion of identity will be through the implementation of a joint foreign policy, a joint security policy and, going a stage further, a joint defence policy. The characteristics of a state normally include control over external, foreign and, ultimately, defence policy.

Mr. Stephen Milligan: The right hon. Gentleman makes the point that the assertion of identity is a property of a state. Only a moment ago he emphasised to one of my hon. Friends how successful NATO has been, and how the assertion of its identity has done so much to help us—but NATO is not a state.

Mr. Shore: The hon. Gentleman reveals a woeful ignorance of the NATO treaty. It makes vital commitments, but NATO itself has never passed a single law. It is also a treaty from which we can withdraw at any time—and from which France substantially withdrew many years ago when General de Gaulle kicked NATO out of Versailles.

Mr. Jim Marshall: My right hon. Friend is right to say that the treaty forms a new entity and that its common provisions distribute powers between the centre and member states. Many of my right hon. Friend's points about economic and monetary union and the power that Brussels will have are also correct. However, perhaps he fails to understand that the Government need not bring before the House for approval the other aspect that he is now addressing, which is one of the separate pillars and will not form part of the ultimate Act.
The Government, acting through the intergovernmental conference, can continue to develop the entity or state without making any reference to Parliament or passing Acts of Parliament. In advancing his argument in terms of common defence, my right hon. Friend risks encouraging the Government to proceed even further down the intergovernmental conference road.

Mr. Shore: It might so encourage the Government, but if that danger exists we must confront it when dealing with the present prerogative powers. We must bring them more under the control of our own Parliament, not abandon them to European Community treaties.

Mr. Garel-Jones: Earlier, the right hon. Gentleman stressed the importance that he attaches, as do many right hon. and hon. Members, to the NATO alliance and to the contribution that it has long made to Europe's security. The treaties that established that alliance did not require any legislation before ratification by the United Kingdom. That expands on the point made by the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall).

Mr. Shore: Although it might have been desirable to bring the NATO treaty before Parliament for ratification, it was no different from the 1,001 treaties that the United Kingdom signed over the years. The difference comes in the law-making and other major powers that the treaty will accord to the Community. That is an entirely different matter.

Mr. Garel-Jones: That is precisely my point. The Bill is before the House so that we may take on board those aspects of the Maastricht treaty that affect the United Kingdom's domestic legislation. Any action taken by agreement among member states in respect of the intergovernmental pillars to which the hon. Member for Leicester, South referred would involve—if it meant changing United Kingdom legislation—a Bill being brought before the House.

Mr. Shore: We would like both kinds of treaties brought before us.

Mr. Benn: Even if there were no move towards Community institutions controlling defence and security policy, members of the armed forces and of the Foreign Office would be citizens with duties to the union. Those duties will apply to everybody—not just to the ordinary citizen but to those in the armed forces. The union proposal asserts that there must be a common


international identity and common security. It may be that Governments will claim that they have some rights in the matter, but soldiers and diplomats will have a duty to the union to carry through its policy. That aspect affects every citizen, and it should not be dealt with by the royal prerogative of ratification.

Mr. Shore: That matter is of profound importance. As my right hon. Friend explained in his usual helpful and analytical way, the concept of European citizenship relates to the individual obligations that can be imposed on our people if we accede to the treaty's different heads.

Mr. Spearing: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Shore: No—I would like to make a little progress.
The question of whether or not the union should have the international personality that title I says we must promote is already being seriously discussed in the context of whether or not, in reforming the United Nations Security Council, the Community should be given a permanent place there. That debate is being conducted all over Europe, though that is not reflected here.
If one knows that one is committed to a common foreign, security and a defence policy, how can one resist giving the Community—the superior body in the federal structure—a place on the Security Council? Ministers will have to face that argument before long, because it will be pressed very hard.
The Minister and the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs emphasised again and again how important are the pillar arrangements for home affairs, justice affairs, and foreign and defence policy. I invite the Committee to re-examine article N.2, to which reference is made in title I, which refers to another intergovernmental conference in 1996. The IGC is already pointed at, in strengthening the provisions under articles A and B. The Euro-federalists know very well that they have not come to the end of the road but have merely taken a giant step forward, and are already preparing to launch a final assault to establish an entity that has all the powers of a state.
The characteristics of a state are a single currency, federal or union bank, authority to decide external and defence policy, rights of entry in respect of citizenship, and—as the hon. Member for Stafford mentioned in one of his final points—means. The treaty states clearly and unambiguously that the union shall have the means necessary to perform the tasks that it sets itself in articles A to E.
We are all familiar with the concept of means—it is the concept of own resources, stretched still further into the wealth and income of the nation states.

Sir Russell Johnston: The right hon. Gentleman's list of definitions of the powers of a putative state did not include the right to conduct external trade, which the Community already has. Does he oppose that?

Mr. Shore: No. We must accept that in the interests of commerce and trade, given that they will be ruled by the provisions of GATT. I have always taken a fairly liberal view of trade—except in times of great emergency, when it makes sense for nations to protect their interests and not be too heavily damaged by unrestricted competition in-world trade. I am broadly in favour of free world trade

—and therefore I am in favour of GATT and all that has followed from it, and of those parts of the treaty that reflect GATT.

Sir Trevor Skeet: One of the Government documents states that the European union will not have an international legal personality. If it is to have no international legal personality, no persona, the difficulty will be that we shall have to work through the Commission. What are the implications of the fact that this body is to be all-powerful but that it cannot be all-powerful internationally? Ought not one of the Law Officers to come here to answer our questions on the very matter that we are considering this afternoon?

6 pm

Mr. Shore: Of course I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is an important point. My attention, however, was drawn to one of the articles in the treaty, article J.5, under the heading
Provisions on a common foreign and security policy.
Paragraph 1 states that
The Presidency shall represent the Union in matters coming within the common foreign and security policy.
It seems that we have already gone a very long way towards abandoning control over our own foreign policy.
To pick up the point about federalism that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes), apparently we need not worry about federalism because it means something entirely different in other European countries; therefore, we should be entirely relaxed about it. My immediate comment is, rubbish. We understand very well what federalism is. We also understand that Germany in particular has a highly-developed form of federal state. We are also familiar with the concept of federalism in our own national experience, particularly when we drew up the constitutions for Canada and Australia and, before that, for India. They were all federal states. This country is probably the greatest architect or creator of federal states in the world.

Mr. Derek Enright: And we can do it for ourselves.

Mr. Shore: Yes, we are perfectly entitled to do it for ourselves, too. It must always, however, be within the context of a nation state arranging for the great devolution of power to different levels of government. To do that within one's own nation state is in no sense to abandon sovereignty and control over one's own affairs. What we are talking about now, however, is a new kind of federalism. It means abandoning the strategic power of control over one's own country and its Government to a higher level of government—a new, supra-federalism that would take the key decisions in future. That is my answer to my hon. Friend. I hope that he is satisfied with it.

Mr. Gapes: Not at all.

Mr. Shore: Very well.
I turn to the second great excuse that is made for these arrangements. The first excuse is the pillars; the second excuse is subsidiarity. It is said that subsidiarity is a crucial part of the treaty and that it moves in the opposite direction from the direction that I say the thrust of the treaty is towards. Is that really so? I have something to say to hon. Members about this which I hope will interest them.
We are familiar with the basic concept of subsidiarity. We know that, in any serious clash, what is subsidiarity and what is not will be decided by the European Court. We know very well what the European Court will decide. We know exactly what the remit of the European Court of Justice is, but I want to turn to a second point which has not been made before.
The Government claim that they have subsidiarity back to us and that. somehow, it has changed the course of the Community—that it has made a vast difference, that they fought for it and that, at last, the Community is beginning to change its mind. I am sure that hon. Members know that that is not so.
When I looked at the Commission document, its Opinion on Political Union of 21 October 1990, which preceded the intergovernmental conference on political union and which was long before the Government were fighting desperately for subsidiarity, I found that it urged further great advances towards European union and political federalism. It says:
The question of subsidiarity is closely linked to the redefinition of certain powers. The Commission considers that this common-sense principle should be written into the Treaty, as suggested by Parliament in its draft treaty on European union. It should serve as a guideline to the institutions when, under a new article 235, freed from its purely economic purpose, they have to take a unanimous decision of principle on new Community action. Compliance with the principle could be checked by retrospective control of the institution's activities to ensure that there is no abuse of power.
Here is the Commission, in part of its own document, driving forward towards a new union and saying, "Why shouldn't we have a bit of subsidiarity as well? We're for it. We'll put it in the treaty."
It is not only the Commission that favours subsidiarity. To quote again from the speech that Mr. Andreotti made to the European Parliament on 20 November 1990. after referring to economic and monetary union and the single currency he went on to say that
European union should be founded upon the principle of subsidiarity but should also acquire a flexible but evoluted tool"—
I do not know quite what that means—
in order to allow the acquisition of new competences.
He saw no inhibition at all. He is a keen federalist. He was making a pro-federalist speech to the European Parliament and recommended that we should have subsidiarity. That was in October 1990, long before the Government in their desperate, marvellous struggle at Maastricht tried to claw back powers from the European Community and hand them to the nation states. It is a major fraud. I hope that the Committee understands just how much it is a fraud.

Mr. Ray Whitney: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that he is out of date? He refers time and time again to issues that are at least two years old. 'What the right hon. Gentleman fails to recognise is the encouraging development of the concept of subsidiarity achieved at Maastricht and at Birmingham, a concept that will be further elaborated. Charming though he is, the right hon. Gentleman is art old-fashioned socialist and a deeply committed little-Englander whose out-of-dateness on this issue is in keeping with his antediluvian approach to the whole issue.

Mr. Shore: I do not intend to swap abuse with the hon. Gentleman, but it is hardly antediluvian to quote what was said by the Prime Minister of Italy—

Mr. Whitney: Two years ago.

Mr. Shore: —and also by the President of the Commission and Commission members long before subsidiarity became a tremendous gain for the British Government. The Prime Minister of Italy conceded then that there should be subsidiarity as part of the great advance towards federal union in western Europe. I see that the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) nods in agreement. He is an openly-declared federalist. He acknowledges that what I say is true. It is only those who are ashamed of their federalism and of their unionism who seek to deny it.

Mr. Garel-Jones: May I try to help the right hon. Gentleman by quoting to him what was said by the President of the Commission post-Maastricht and post-article 3b:
In the Community system, national competence is the rule and Community competence the exception.
That sort of comment flows from the inclusion of article 3b in the treaty.

Mr. Shore: That is what the Minister maintains, but he and I know that members of the Commission are not lawyers but politicians. The Commission is aware of the Government's difficulty and is trying to be as helpful as possible. None of the arrogance of Mr. Delors' private office that we witnessed before the Danish treaty has been repeated, but we know very well that he was planning another major statement on the federal advance of the European union before the Danish referendum. Since the Danish referendum, the Commission has been drawing back and trying to pretend that it has had a change of heart and that things are different. Why? Because its members are politicians, and they know that they are in danger of defeat.

Mr. Garel-Jones: It is perfectly clear that whenever anyone makes a statement with which the right hon. Gentleman does not agree it is a pretence, but whenever anyone makes a statement that reinforces his prejudice, even if it was made two or three years ago, it is gospel.

Mr. Shore: I do not think that that will do. Less than two months ago, Mr. Bangemann—I believe he is a vice-president of the Community—said that subsidiarity presupposes a federal European state. Is that up to date? Yes, indeed it is, and I do not invite the Minister to comment because I have established my point.

Mr. Llew Smith: Does my right hon. Friend accept that one of the institutions to which we would lose power is a European central bank, and is he concerned that the recent publication of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, "Britain in Europe", makes no reference to the fact that the bank will not be responsible to the Parliaments that make up the EC?

Mr. Shore: I know that, and I have not gone into the horrors of economic and monetary union because I shall have another opportunity to raise them under title II. I have been seeking to establish the meaning of European union, because an essential preliminary to discussing the rest of the treaty is to know its thrust and purpose.
I conclude by asking the key question: do we want a federal culture? I know that we are a depressed nation and that we have suffered a lot of setbacks in recent years, but do we believe that we have reached such a state that we are no longer able, no longer have the will and no longer have the courage to govern ourselves as a free democracy?

Mrs. Currie: I should like to make a fairly brief speech—probably the shortest in the debate so far, but that would not be difficult.
I can well understand why the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) is keen to include title I in the Bill. His general approach, which has been consistent and for which I respect him, has been that he believes in a full federal Europe. I do not, which is one of the reasons why I think that he is wrong; but Ministers are right to oppose amendment No. 93.
Conservative Members should be cautious about what the amendments propose. In principle, we should be cautious about what the Opposition's amendments propose. We should be cautious and suspicious of all proposals to change the law of the land. We should never enact unnecessary or repetitious legislation. We should be wary of proposals that increase the power of European institutions, and I say that as a supporter of the treaty.
I am surprised, therefore, by the attitude of some of my hon. Friends, because the Government rightly oppose amendment No. 93 and the other half dozen being considered with it. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State has explained that they are not necessary, that the law that we need to change will be debated under different titles and that to accept title I would go too far, would create all sorts of legal complications and confusions, would delay the progress of the Bill and would offer in Britain opportunities for litigation that do not exist in countries that have already ratified. That attitude is perfectly clear. Therefore, some of my colleagues, including my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash), are in the daft position of having tabled amendments that they do not agree with.

Mr. Cash: Absolute nonsense. Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Currie: In a minute. I listened to the hon. Gentleman for a long time.

Mr. Cash: We listen to you all the time.

Mrs. Currie: With respect, this place is the only spot in the country that has a surplus of cash at the moment. I am not giving way yet.
6.15 pm
My hon. Friends appear to have got themselves into a strange position. They tabled amendments—a pile of material—with which they do not agree and spent all yesterday evening and all day today, and presumably will spend yet more time, explaining to the nation why they do not agree with this stuff. One must ask, therefore, why table the amendments? They did not need to table them, because amendment No. 93 would have been more than sufficient for their purpose of holding a debate on the general principles of title I.
The Labour party did not make that mistake. It tabled amendment No. 108, and no Labour Back Benchers have

tabled amendments. It is deeply disappointing to Conservative Members who support the treaty and the Bill that Labour Members—whose party conference supported the treaty and whose party would be introducing the Bill if it had won the election—have kept so quiet. Labour Members have been silent. The Labour party is allowing itself to be portrayed to the country, to Europe and to the Parliaments of the world as being hostile to Europe.

Mr. Stuart Randall: The quietness of Labour Members does not suggest that they are not committed to a Europe comprising a group of nations co-operating for the betterment of the people of Europe and outside Europe.

Mrs. Currie: I have justified my existence already: I have goaded Labour Members into getting to their feet and giving a bit of support. I hope that they will continue to do so.
My hon. Friends are entitled to wish to debate the general principles of title I, but they are not entitled to hog the Floor or to give the impression that all Conservatives agree with them, which is not true. The House of Commons has voted on the general principles of the treaty and the Bill a number of times, and the majority of hon. Members have been firmly in favour. The only occasion when there was a small majority was when Opposition Members sought to make it an issue of confidence in the Government, and on that basis some Opposition Members felt able to vote in the no Lobby.
We had a general election only a few months ago, at which all the main parties supported the treaty. The issue of Europe was not raised, and my hon. Friends must consider why all the main parties supported it. They did so because they regard it as being good for this country and for Europe that we should be part of this development and because they regard it as part of the development of the free world, of which we are lucky to be part.
I have listened to the debate. I must apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford for not having listened to his closing comments this afternoon, but I reckoned that they would be much the same as we heard yesterday. I believe that I detected the techniques that he was using.
Those techniques seem to have fallen into two main categories. First, my hon. Friend accuses everyone in the Committee of not having read the treaty. Well, most of us have read it. The second technique is to accuse us of not understanding the treaty. Most of us do understand it. The fact of the matter is that most of us do not agree with my hon. Friend, any more than we agree with the amendment of the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber, which would put an excess of federalism into the treaty and change British legislation in an inappropriate way.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Can my hon. Friend produce one lawyer who can give a clear definition of subsidiarity?

Mrs. Currie: I have the greatest respect for my hon. Friend, but I have to tell him that there is no lawyer in the country who can ever produce a clear definition of anything. That is not what lawyers do for a living. The more obfuscation there is, the more complex legislation that we pass, and the more often that those guys can charge the rest of us big fees when they get us into court one way or another, the better they like it.
The job of the House of Commons is not to put more legislation than is necessary on the statute book. If my hon. Friend agrees with me, I invite him to take the same view that I do on the amendment, which would do just that.

Sir Russell Johnston: The hon. Lady says that she has read the treaty and understands the whole thing—that it is all pellucidly clear to her.

Mrs. Currie: I did not say that.

Sir Russell Johnston: There was the implication that everything was transparent to the hon. Lady. If that is so, could she explain to me what the Minister failed to explain? She says that if title I were introduced into the Bill it would make an extraordinary difference. Apparently it would do all sorts of things. Will she please give me one example?

Mrs. Currie: With all due respect to the hon. Gentleman, I should never dream of suggesting that any handiwork of human beings was perfect. The treaty is not perfect either. Any one of us could cite one line, one sentence or one paragraph that we would prefer not to be there—but what is on offer is a huge treaty negotiated by many people in the interests of all of us.
I am not a lawyer, thank God, but I am advised that putting title I on the face of the Bill is unnecessary and would be confusing, because any parts of it that may be justiciable are already included in other titles. I am happy to accept the argument that putting more legislation on the statute book would be more confusing. That is axiomatic in much of what we get up to in this place.
Several hon. Members from both sides of the Committee have produced evidence—although it tends to be the same stuff. Often it comes from just one speech made by Mr. Bangemann. I have no writ running for Bangemann; he is not a member of my party. The Labour party should have no writ running for him either, because he is not a member of their party either. He is a sort of German Liberal, a member of one of the minority parties, although much of what he says does not sound very liberal to me.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: rose—

Mrs. Currie: I shall give way in a moment.
In a continent containing so many people, it would not be difficult to find all sorts of opinions being expressed. Much "evidence" of what other people mean by, and want from, union is being called in aid. One need look no further than Members of the House. There are plenty of people here who believe all that—but I do not. I do not believe in a federal Europe—and the treaty does not mean that there will be a federal Europe.
I tell the Committee, and especially my hon. Friends who oppose the Bill, that I believe that over the next few years Europe needs to develop a civil service or Commission that will take on board the best qualities of the British civil service, in that it will be totally non-political, and tend to keep quiet and to give advice rather than trying to dominate. I add one factor which I should see both in the Commission—

Mr. Budgen: rose—

Mrs. Currie: I shall give way in a moment.
Another factor which I should like to be incorporated

both into our civil service and into the Commission is that for 10 years after they leave those organisations staff should be banned from accepting posts in the public or the private sector related to their work in the civil service. That would get rid of any hint of corruption.

Mr. Budgen: In view of my hon. Friend's expressed interest in the European Parliament, does she see the role of the Member of the European Parliament becoming more dynamic and active in future? I wondered whether that might have been one of the reasons that attracted her to that forum.

Mrs. Currie: My hon. Friend flatters me. If I were to replace one of the Labour MEPs, I am sure that what my hon. Friend says would be the case—and I am sure that he would agree with that.

Mr. Budgen: My hon. Friend knows that that is not the point.

Mrs. Currie: My hon. Friend is refusing to pay me a compliment. Let us move on.
Because several people are available to have their views quoted on European union, that does not mean that they are right about the way that things will go—except for one significant fact. If this country did not play a full part in the future of Europe, the people whose voices have been quoted would play a bigger part than they do now. Indeed, that is more likely if we are not involved.
I have to tell my hon. Friends who oppose the Bill that I have been appalled to hear so much small-mindedness, bigotry, fear and ignorance expressed in the speeches that have been made so far from this side of the Committee. In fact, apart from mine, so far only one speech has been made by a Conservative Member.
The world is in transition and we are in a time of considerable difficulty—[Interruption.] One has to ask what has happened—[Laughter.] The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) may think that that is funny, but I do not. One has to ask what has happened to this country's pride and self-confidence, and our awareness of what goes on in the world. We have always been members of alliances, and have always drawn our strength from them. We have never had any strength on our own. That has been true throughout our history, especially recently.
The European Community already accounts for 340 million people. It is as large as the United States of America and Japan put together, and we are lucky to be part of it. We should think so. Our fellow Europeans think so. They know it, and they want us in the front rank.
The Bill seeks to incorporate into United Kingdom law only those parts of the Maastricht treaty which require changes in United Kingdom law. That is the right approach. I congratulate the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), and assure him of my support.

Mr. Enright: This is a mean Bill, and it typifies the Government's approach to Maastricht, which was also expressed by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie). Essentially, that approach says, "We have kept close to the Single European Act. We had to go a little further, because if we had not done so the wolves would have arisen on the continent and driven us out, and we should not have had the influence that we now have."
The Bill is mean not only because of the withdrawal from the social chapter and from monetary union—I favour monetary union—but because of the Government's approach. Nevertheless, there is much left in the Bill which can and should be supported.
We are looking not for a oneness, or one state, but a diversity in unity. That diversity does not preclude a union. I have no qualms of conscience in saying that we are going into a union. That is clearly expressed; there is a commitment, and that is right and proper.
The problem for hon. Members is that we are used to working with an unwritten constitution. The other day, when the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) was talking about the treaty, he said, "I am a lawyer, so I know." That is the exact problem of the hon. Member for Stafford, especially when discussing amendment No. 93. At present we are discussing the spirit of Maastricht. It is extremely important. It pervades the movement forward from what was a single market—essentially, a hypermarket—and will put some humanity into the European Community. Above all, that is what Maastricht tries to do.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) said that we had moved from the days when France talked about a Europe des patries. That is true; France has moved on to talk about federalism. France has moved towards a federal system within its country. A short 15 years ago, France was the most centralised country on the continent. Today, it has gone a considerable way towards devolution.
I am a citizen, first, of Yorkshire; secondly, of the United Kingdom; and, thirdly, of Europe. I find no tension among those three states. However, I have difficulty with what circumscribes our sovereignty in Yorkshire. Our sovereignty in Yorkshire is circumscribed by bodies such as the Department of the Environment.
I well remember when I chaired the West Yorkshire metropolitan county council planning and transportation committee, and difficulties that I had with my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney, who was in charge of such matters at that time. We were trying to do things that central Government did not want us to do. The position has become even worse since my right hon. Friend departed office. There is a centralised power in the United Kingdom which makes it difficult for us to accept, or even understand, the concept of federalism.

Mr. Marlow: The hon. Gentleman says that he is a citizen of the United Kingdom and that he rejoices in that fact. He is happy to become a citizen of Europe, and would rejoice equally in that. He is also a subject of Her Majesty the Queen. Would he be happy to be a subject of Mr. Jacques Delors?

Mr. Enright: Leaving aside the false analogy, I should be delighted to be a subject of my good friend Jacques Delors. I enjoyed many good conversations and meals with him in the French Treasury when he was putting right the French economy. However, I digress.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I am interested to hear of my hon. Friend's friendship with Jacques Delors. As a citizen of the United Kingdom, does my hon. Friend agree that he is a citizen of a highly

centralised multinational state? Is he confident that the Government's interpretation of subsidiarity will lead to a dispersal of political power, as we have seen in France, Germany and Spain?

Mr. Enright: I agree with my hon. Friend. We have recently shared the same platform. I have been impressed by the relaxed way in which the Scots nation shares its sovereignty with us. The way in which that is done is tremendous. Therefore, the Scots nation should have even more devolution under subsidiarity.

Dr. Godman: May I disabuse my hon. Friend of his illusion about the Scottish Members of Parliament? The overwhelming majority of Scottish Members of Parliament want a Parliament established in Scotland. They want to establish powers of the sort that the 16 Lander in Germany enjoy. However, the establishment of such powers will not result from the Government's implementation and interpretation of article 3(b) of the treaty.

Mr. Enright: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Our problem with sovereignty lies not with Brussels but with the Government. The problem lies with Conservative Members who support the Government, and that is an important matter.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: Sovereignty only means constitutional independence. It is part of the sliding of meanings. By all means, let us use another word. How does one merge constitutional independence?

Mr. Enright: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says, because sovereignty has nothing to do with control over one's life. For ordinary people, control over their lives is important. That control is real, not an illusion. What control do we have over our currency now that we are away from economic and monetary union? We have moved away from the exchange rate mechanism.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Enright: I will give way when I have made my point.
Since we moved out of the exchange rate mechanism, I have found that my hon. Friends do not blame the true culprit, which is Government policy. Government policy has ruined our economy and destroyed the pound. My hon. Friends prefer to give the Government an excuse—the exchange rate mechanism. That is untrue. I am an unashamed socialist, as I am an unashamed unionist in the sense of Europe. As a socialist, I believe in managing the exchange rate.
It is extremely important to manage the exchange rate; otherwise, it is left to the speculators. The United Kingdom on its own cannot manage the pound or defend it. The rate at which we trade at present is the rate that is decided by a fickle market.

Mr. Shore: It is difficult to take seriously my hon. Friend's assertion that we have no control over our currency and less freedom than when we were in the ERM. I am sure that he is aware that our interest rates were a minimum 10 per cent. when we were forced out of the ERM. To stay in the ERM, we had to raise interest rates to 15 per cent. We would have gone beyond that figure if necessary or if possible. The interest rates of the weaker currencies in Europe are 13 to 14 per cent.
Since we left the ERM, we not only have a more competitive pound, but we have been able to reduce interest rates by 3 per cent. According to many people, such a reduction was impossible before we left the ERM, because we were totally dominated by the deutschmark. Many of my right hon. and hon. Friends said that we had 20 minutes of currency freedom before we left the ERM.

Mr. Enright: I am interested to hear my right hon. Friend suggest that devaluation at whatever is the market price is good. The market price is the price at which the speculators can make a profit.
It was interesting to read in The Guardian the account of the possibility of changing the rate. The way in which the currency could have been managed—and, frankly, should have been managed—meant that we could have been a reliable trading country.
I give my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney an example of what management of the currency means to ordinary people in the control of their lives. As a result of the state of the economy, our area must collect funds for a hospital scanner. The collections were going well as a result of the desirable lowering of the exchange rate. However, we must now find another £25,000. That is important in a poor area such as ours, and it is repeated time and again.
Economic policy cannot be decided with short-term ends in view. One must look to at least a five-year cycle. I agree that a five-year cycle is difficult to maintain, but it must be thought through. However, that is an argument for another day.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: Does my hon. Friend accept that there is a better chance of keeping pits open when imported coal is dearer and therefore domestically produced coal is more competitive than it was when we were in the ERM? Does my hon. Friend also accept that the system that rewards the speculators is an exchange rate mechanism that requires the British Government to buy back any pounds they care to sell, at whatever profit?

Mr. Enright: I am extremely pleased that my hon. Friend has brought up the subject of coal, which is my next topic. He will realise that energy is one of the new headings in the Maastricht treaty. What we should be doing for 1996 is putting some meat on the skeleton of energy policy. That is how we shall keep our coal pits open. An artificial means of money exchange will not keep them open.

Mr. Bryan Gould: May I express the hope that my hon. Friend's regrets for what happened on 16 September do not mean that he believes that it was either desirable or possible for us to have adhered to the parity of DM2·95 to the pound which was required of us by the ERM? Will he at least recognise that that terrible burden was removed from us very much by the force of circumstances?

Mr. Enright: My hon. Friend misunderstands the ERM. It did not require us to stay at that parity. When the exchange rate was fixed, it was a reasonable exchange rate, but because of the destruction of industry and of manufacturing, and because of the failure to pursue a successful economic policy, it had to go down. That could and should have been managed.

Mr. Jim Marshall: I like the way in which my hon. Friend seeks to defend the impossible—the pound's valuation under the ERM. He says that devaluation could have taken place under the system, and clearly he is right. However, am I correct in saying that the maximum devaluation permitted was 7 per cent? The present indication is that the pound has devalued by substantially more than 7 per cent.

Mr. Enright: No, that is not entirely correct. There are examples the other way. There is no problem here. It is relatively simple for ECOFIN to sit around the table and to produce sensible solutions.

Mr. Marlow: If the hon. Gentleman has read today's evening paper, he will have seen that the French franc is under pressure and that the financial tanks are on the lawns of the Elysee palace. The hon. Gentleman is a great fan of the ERM—we understand that. What advice would he give the French President about the franc?

Mr. Enright: I am grateful for the confidence that the hon. Gentleman reposes in me in that respect. It is not a question for me at all. I am sure that the French President will be able to deal with the matter in his own way.

Mr. Knapman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Enright: No, because I want to make some progress.
I turn now to co-operation in foreign policy. There is a great deal of misunderstanding about that. There are areas that should be examined in which practical co-operation will and should take place. Specifically mentioned in the treaty, far more strongly than in any other treaty, is development co-operation. It is clear that nonsense is going on in Africa, in Asia and in South America in terms of development aid. It regularly happens that six or seven of the member states of the EC set up their own programmes while the European Community is setting up its own programmes, and that the programmes are contradictory.
Even worse is the insistence on selling certain goods. I give Guinea-Bissau as an example. British electrical generators were sold to Guinea-Bissau although the country already had German, French and Japanese generators. The British generators require a sophistication that is impossible in developing countries. The treaty is a practical way in which to come together to ensure that we do not destroy development in trying to assist it.
6.45 pm
I began by saying that the Bill was a mean Bill, because I believed that the Government's approach was mean. However, with the social chapter and the social dimension of what can be done under Maastricht, we shall be able to opt in, either when the Government see sense or when a Labour Government take over.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: I am trying to clarify my hon. Friend's position. Do his comments mean that he does not support the present opt-out on economic and monetary union?

Mr. Enright: I do not support the present opt-out. I take the line that 12 out of 12 socialist parties back Maastricht. The other 11 socialist parties say to this


socialist party, "Please do not annihilate Maastricht simply because of the opt-out. It will be easy for you to opt in to the social chapter."

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Does my hon. Friend agree that the fact that the Conservative Government are so extreme in their opposition to workers' rights that they opt out of the social chapter is no justification for us, by defeating Maastricht, to deny those rights to the working people of the other 11 countries?

Mr. Enright: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. This country needs quality jobs, not cheapjack jobs.

Mr. Giles Radice: Is it not totally illogical to argue that we should vote against the Bill because it does not contain the social chapter? That would not only deprive our friends on the continent of Europe of the social chapter, but would deprive us of any prospect of opting in.

Mr. Enright: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. A further point was made to me by the managing director of a multinational firm. He said, "We are operating on the continent. We must operate the social chapter there. We shall operate it here." I am convinced that, ere long, the Government will be taken to court over the matter. I shall be entirely happy to surrender our sovereignty to the courts of Europe, which will give us justice under the social charter.

Sir Teddy Taylor: I will not go over what the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) said. However, I make this appeal to him. If, as a socialist, he cares about working people, he should look at what is happening in Europe today. The evening paper says: "ERM in last stand as the franc plunges". The Danish currency is plunging. Interest rates are soaring in the countries of Europe.
Who is suffering? The speculators do not suffer. The ERM was the best thing that ever came to the speculators. They have been making millions. The people who suffer are the working people of Europe who are put out of their jobs and out of their homes because of a mad policy of pretending that currencies are worth what they are not.
I appreciate that there are always people who have held views for a long time with some sincerity. Even in the Church of England, one finds people who say, "Things have always been this way and I will stick to it." I find it sickening—I mean that sincerely, because I do not usually attack people—to hear a member of the Labour party—the party that has fought for working people, for human rights and for the ordinary people of Britain—support a policy that is destroying jobs and the communities of working people because of an absurd, irrelevant and artificial process.
The Conservatives have learnt. We have learnt that the ERM is a load of rubbish. I very much doubt whether one could find anyone apart from a few residual fanatics who would say anything good about the ERM. It is nonsense. We all know that to try to pretend that the pound is worth something it is not or that the franc is worth something it is not means that one has to distort something else.
It either means that, as we once had, we create artificial prosperity as happened with the previous Chancellor, or there is artificial inflation. Think what it means to the

people with homes and jobs—it is a policy of madness. While I accept that probably some people have rethought this, I am the last person in the world to support this absurd nonsense that, if they are working people, they are members of the British Labour party.

Mr. Geoffrey Hoon: I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way. While he is indulging in these flights of rhetoric, he needs to explain one thing: how can it be better for speculators to have a system of managed exchange rates than it is to have a system where all rates float? He needs to address that issue.

Sir Teddy Taylor: The hon. Gentleman needs to look at what really happens, not at me, and not what he reads in books. The speculators try to keep a currency at an artificial level, and are pushing and pulling. If he looks not at books nor at me but at what is happening, he will see that the speculators have a wonderful time making millions of pounds because of this absurd policy. It is not the working people: it is the speculators.
I am pleased that this party has woken up and realised that it is nonsense, but it is the socialists who are repeating this nonsense. I would say to anyone that, if they think that allowing the pound to find its market value is contrary to socialism, I just cannot see it.

Mr. Knapman: Does my hon. Friend believe that 30 per cent. inflation at this time is helpful to the people of a country or to the speculators?

Sir Teddy Taylor: My hon. Friend has got it. How does it help the working people of Ireland, where they have 20 per cent. unemployment and interst rates of 30 per cent? What about people with homes, people who have borrowed money? How does it help them to see interest rates forced up, not to help the economy but basically to preserve an artificial exchange rate? Opposition Members have used a cloud of slogans and make people laugh, but they should rethink their position. There is plenty of room for honest political disagreement. There is nothing wrong with that, but to have someone supporting an absurd policy which only harms working people seems to me ridiculous and shameful.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I have had honest political disagreements with the hon. Gentleman for a quarter of a century, but will he just keep it cool and reflect on what the Community has been able to do for his own city of Glasgow and for the Strathclyde area? They think, rightly or wrongly, that they have received great good from the Community.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Of course, and the people of Ireland like it as well as the people of Glasgow, but one has to appreciate that every pound that goes to Glasgow and to Ireland costs us £1·68p. While I appreciate that great things have been done in Glasgow, in the absurd business of taking in money and sloshing it around, someone is losing because of all the machinery. If people say that Europe has brought us a new factory or a new bridge, they should realise that they could have had twice as many bridges if we had not had this absurd nonsense of intervening.

Mrs. Gorman: Is it not true that it is not just a matter of money sloshing about? Our net contribution to the EC


costs us about £50 million every week, and that will go up to £200 million a week if we go into Maastricht and get into the cohesion fund.

Sir Teddy Taylor: It does not matter to me or to my hon. Friend, because we have worked hard all our lives and have savings and money. But what about the poor people who are paying £4 a week in membership? There are also the poor people, the pensioners and the unemployed, who are paying £18 a week extra for their food. She is quite right: we should be thinking of them. We should not be thinking just about the MPs and all the rest, but about the people with small incomes. However, we must get on with the amendment.

Sir Russell Johnston: It becomes impossible to comprehend the hon. Member as a member of a party which has governed for 13 years, during which the differentiation between the rich and the poor has become greater than ever before. It is unfair of him to say this. If he is talking about the relationship in the exchange rate, he knows, as someone whose party supports business, that business wants to be able to project its prices ahead. That was one of the basic reasons for trying to achieve a controlled relationship.

Sir Teddy Taylor: This idea that one can somehow fix everything—interest rates, prices and everything else—is the basis of a communist society. What happens when one does that? I ask the hon. Gentleman in all seriousness: if he says that about sums like £18 a week for poor families in Billericay and in Southend, what can I or he or the Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition do about it? That is the issue of Maastricht. There is nothing we can do. People will vote in the next election. Remember how the people voted last time, but there is nothing we can do.
The real tragedy is that people are being misled by MPs jumping up and down and saying, "I want an inquiry," and, "I want a rethink." I remember someone, some silly twit, saying the other day, "I want to stop the scandal of this pornography being sold." Hon. Members heard him, but I will not say who he was. He said that something had to be done. The fact is that the Minister who was in charge of standards until recently—my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor)—was basically saying, "There is nothing we can do." Yet the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition arid the Liberal Democrats all say, "We want to stop this pornography being sold in Britain, but we cannot do it because of the European broadcasting directives."
Basically, one of the topics in considering this amendment—

Mr. Marlow: I am sorry to intervene, but I am trying to save time by being helpful. A Labour Member has raised the question of the ERM and the speculators, so can we save time for the future and nail this business once and for all? Because we are in the ERM, our economy is moving at a different speed from those of other economies, and it is obvious that that currency at some stage or another has got to give.
If it has to give, there is a one-way bet for the speculators, so they are going to make money. If there are floating exchange rates, so that the rates are going up and down according to the economies trading with each other, there is no one-way bet, because they will not know

whether it is to go up or down, but the speculators will make money out of the ERM and not out of the other systems.

Sir Teddy Taylor: We are coming to that in considering future parts of the Bill. The only thing against what my hon. Friend says is Maastricht. Will we have to rejoin the ERM? The answer is that we do not know. At a packed meeting of Back Benchers, the Government said that we did not have to rejoin the ERM at all and some people went, clap, clap, clap.
The Foreign Secretary, said, in a little pamphlet, that we would have to rejoin the ERM to sign the Maastricht treaty. Then a barrister said that we had to rejoin the ERM to sign Maastricht. The trouble is that no one knows. We have to wait until the European Court tells us. That is the fact that people must face.
I must come to the amendment, because I have spoken for far too long. Basically, the amendment is saying that title I should go into the treaty. That is what it says: nothing more or less. if I were to ask, "Do I approve of title I?", the answer would be, "Absolutely not," because title I is damaging. It will damage Britain and democracy, and will do all kinds of bad things to our people and to their rights and freedoms.
But of course, we are not debating whether we support this. We are supporting a simple little structural Liberal Democrat amendment, which says that we would like to put this into the Bill.
I have listened for a day and a half to all the speeches, including one or two very unusual ones. What I would say to everyone is: "Please tell me: what difference is it going to make if we put this into the Bill?" I listened to the Minister, who spoke for an hour, which I thought was far too long, and I read his speech again this morning; then I read it a second time.
Having read the Minister's speech, I asked myself what difference the amendment would make. The Minister said that things may go to court if the amendment were accepted. However, the preamble already applies if a case goes to the European Court. Even though it is not in British law, it will be considered by the European Court. In that respect, the amendment makes no difference.
As every other country is incorporating the treaty into its domestic law, will we be in a speical position when cases go to the European Court? The answer to that is no. I do not criticise the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), who has made some interesting speeches—we are looking for his support and co-operation on other issues in future—but the hon. Member argued that we must cut down on unnecessary legislation. That was a splendid comment to come from a Labour party spokesman, and I hope that that will be Labour's policy in future.
7 pm
What legislation can be produced from a preamble? I have discussed that point with clever lawyers. I went to the Library and asked, "On the basis of the preamble, what law or regulations can be produced?" The answer was, "Nothing at all." What possible reason can there be for not incorporating the amendment in the Bill?
The reasons given for the amendment by the Liberal Democrats are obvious and simple. They claim that the amendment will simply add "I" to "Titles II, III". If the amendment is accepted, the Liberal Democrats will feel


happier. They will think that British law has been changed and "isn't that nice?" That will make them feel somehow more European, and for a Liberal Democrat, that is fair enough. If they want to do that kind of thing, good luck to them.
However, are there any other reasons for the amendment? Another reason might be found in article B, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) referred in his splendid speech. Article B refers to the Community providing itself with the means necessary to attain its objectives. Although I am not an expert on these matters, is it not just possible that, if the amendment is incorporated in the Bill, we might have to have that dreadful thing—a money resolution?
If we had a money resolution, that would be terrible. We all know that the treaty will cost us a fortune. As a result of the cohesion fund and the common agricultural policy, every family in Britain will have to pay at least another £2 a week. We will shove lots of money into grand schemes in Portugal and Spain, and into goodness knows what. It would be much better if a European plane dropped £10 notes or 10 ecu notes at random.

Mr. Rowe: My hon. Friend has always been very anxious about the amount of money that the Community costs families. It is perhaps worth remembering that we are still recovering from the amount of money that we poured out in the last war. We poured out that money in an attempt to control dictatorships. When the European Community began, there were dictators in Spain, Portugal and Greece. There are no such dictators now. The European Community can take a great deal of the credit for having achieved that result.

Sir Teddy Taylor: I have heard that argument before. In fact, my Euro-ladies whom I meet when I go to speak in constituencies around the country use the argument to reassure themselves about the Community. We joined the Community because it was supposed to help out trade. Sadly, that has turned out to be a great disaster. We have had a deficit of £50,000 million over the past five years. That is a disappointment.
We were also told that joining the EC would somehow stop unemployment. It has not done that: unemployment is getting worse. We are now saying that we really joined Europe to promote peace. It is interesting to note that the only thing excluded from the treaty of Rome was defence. What has really preserved peace is NATO—a splendid voluntary organisation.
While I appreciate the sincerity of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), and while I know that many other equally sincere Conservative ladies are trying to reassure themselves by saying that that was the real reason for the European Community, we know, sadly, that peace had nothing to do with it at all.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) reminds me of the recent occasion when the United Kingdom appealed to Belgium for help with weaponry and, in particular, ammunition to assist us against a dictator in Iraq. That country—Belgium—which happens to be a member of the European Community, refused to help us and, in the main, we had to fight that fight with our allies from north America. Perhaps we should look to north America to sustain peace and to wage wars against dictators.

Sir Teddy Taylor: My hon. Friend is absolutely right.

Mr. Enright: Will the hon. Member accept that, at precisely the same time, the United Kingdom was selling arms to the dictator in Iraq?

Sir Teddy Taylor: I will not be tempted down that road.

Mr. Rowe: On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. I want to make it quite clear that, despite what my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) has said, I really should not be described as another Conservative lady.

Sir Teddy Taylor: rose—

Mr. Jim Marshall: I know that the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) does not wish to mislead the House. He said that the one thing missing from the original treaty of Rome was defence. He then went on to say that that was because NATO was responsible for peace and defence. He knows a lot about those issues, and he knows that that is incorrect.
If the hon. Gentleman refreshes his memory about the modified Brussels treaty which established the Western European Union, he will recall that the WEU was originally established as an economic, social and defence organisation. When the European Community was originally formed, its economic and social aspects were transferred to the EC, and defence remained the prerogative of the WEU. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will accept that.

Sir Teddy Taylor: The hon. Gentleman knows far more about that than most hon. Members. On the particular point about the WEU, he is right. However, I hope that he will accept my point that the WEU was not responsible for defence policy.

Mr. Michael Stephen: My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) was right to point out that defence is excluded from the European Community. However, he is being less than fair. Surely the point of the European Coal and Steel Community was so to intermingle the coal and steel industries of France and Germany that those countries could never take up arms against each other again.

Sir Teddy Taylor: It is odd to mention coal in this argument. We are in favour of free trade so that goods can cross frontiers easily. However, what is happening to British coal mines today? We are closing pits which are producing coal at £40 a tonne or less, when Germany is producing coal at more than £86 a tonne and other European countries are producing coal at more than £100 a tonne. They are doing that with artificial subsidies. After the British miners have produced cheaper coal, they have been kicked in the teeth, because we are not getting the free trade in Europe that we thought we would get.
My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) made a wise point about defence. Not only did the Belgians not provide the ammunition in that defence problem, but the Irish said that, because they were what they called an independent country, they were unable to implement United Nations resolutions.
The French are delightful people, but they sent an army with severe restrictions imposed on it. The poor American commander panicked so much that he had to have the French army defend a sultan's palace because he was not


quite sure what to do with it. The Germans very strangely did the right thing, and 200 of their firms provided the poison gas and extended the Scud missiles for the Iraqis.
The amendment does not make the slightest difference, unless the issue is the money resolution. The money resolution is the key. Why on earth can we not have a money resolution? We know that the Bill will cost us a fortune. Civil servants will be employed and many things will be done which will cost money. We do not have a money resolution, and we know that, by not having one, many of the things that we should be discussing in the Bill cannot be discussed. If Ministers and hon. Members knew the nightmares that other hon. Members, Labour and Conservative, have been engaged in, trying to find a form of words to enable us to have a debate on a referendum, they would realise why this is important.
I see no objection to the amendment of the Liberal Democrats. It would not make the slightest difference one way or the other. It would not mean the Government promoting more legislation, it would by no means affect court decisions, and even in Europe, where it could affect court decisions to have this, it is going to be in the treaty anyway. On the other hand, the one thing that we must not say to the Liberal Democrats is that this means that we support it.
I want to mention one particular proposal and one particular part of it—the question of citizenship. Some people have laughed at the citizenship concept, but citizenship of the European union contains symbolism of enormous power. The practical rights to be given to citizens of the European union could instead have been conferred on a reciprocal basis on the citizens of other member states. We could have had this question of being able to vote in elections, and all the rest of it. What has been introduced, however, is something very strange.
It is, of course, argued that British citizens will remain British citizens even after they become citizens of the union. No doubt this is so, in the same way as British citizens are still citizens of London, Birmingham or wherever they happen to live. But the effect of this tiny amendment to take out this part is to remove from the treaty the commitment to what some people say as the unitary, and some people say is the federalist, nature of the European union.
The notion of citizenship was introduced not by the Government but by Mr. Felipe Gonzalez, the Spanish Prime Minister, and endorsed by the Commission and others. The Commission considered that it would encourage a feeling of involvement in European integration. The Commission proposed that this should be written into the treaty—the rights of residence and of movement, and the right to take part in local and national elections stayed exactly the same.
We must bear in mind that the establishment of a European union does not mean just that people will be able to vote in elections. Some of us think it a bit daft to say that because someone is French he should be able to vote in Derbyshire.

Mrs. Currie: It is worth pointing out that we have lived happily for a very long time with the fact that Irish citizens can vote in all our elections and even become hon. Members. Perhaps my hon. Friend will explain to us what is so awful about the rights which are clearly set out under the citizenship articles and which are very simple: the right to vote and stand in local and European elections, the right

to diplomatic and consular protection, the right to petition the European Parliament and the creation of a new ombudsman.

Sir Teddy Taylor: I hope that my hon. Friend will genuinely think about this. There is nothing wrong at all, if we want it, in saying that people should be able to vote in elections if they have a house here. An American, an Australian, a Pakistani or a Frenchman who has a house in Britain and pays local taxes should be able to vote in elections, and I have no objection to that. We can pass a law saying that they can do this. But we are not doing that. We are saying that if a Frenchman has a house in Derbyshire he can vote but an Australian or an American or someone else cannot. What can possibly be the logic of this kind of discrimination?

Mr. Tim Devlin: That is not actually true. Australians, Canadians and other members of the Commonwealth can vote if based in Great Britain.

Sir Teddy Taylor: My understanding is that a citizen of the United States is unable to.
The point that I am trying to make is that even if we wanted to sort this out we could do so quite easily by some little provision in British law. The key element of the citizenship Bill is not whether one can vote or petition an ombudsman but what is contained at the end of the section, i.e., the Council of Ministers having the power to strengthen and add to the rights laid down. There is to be a three-year review of one's citizenship duties. If we let this go through, every three years there will be a complete review of the position and the Council of Ministers will be able to add anything it likes to the duties of European citizens. Hon. Members have been told in the past that the common agricultural policy would mean fair prices for the consumer and the housewife, and we have seen what happened. Hon. Members were told that the exchange rate mechanism would guarantee growth and stability, and we have seen what happened. We have been led down the garden path time and time again. We are told that citizenship will mean only certain things, but it will mean more. Hon. Members must wake up to the fact that the introduction of European citizenship will mean the basis of a unitary state with European citizens and not the establishment of a federal Europe—that would be a step forward from what we have. I can never understand why the Government keep on saying that they will fight against a federal Europe to the bitter end; a federal Europe would be a step forward.
7.15 pm
At leasd with a federal Europe some things would belong to us and some things to them. At present nothing is guaranteed for us at all, the way things are developing.

Mrs. Gorman: Is it not a fact that already, whether or not other Europeans can vote in our country, whether or not they pay tax in our country, they can come and live here and receive the benefits of the welfare system of our country? It is possible for someone from Europe to retire to this country, never having contributed a halfpenny towards the taxes, and to draw income support and benefits which have been paid for by the British taxpayer.

Sir Teddy Taylor: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, as always.

Mr. Devlin: It is completely unfair to agree with one hon. Friend who makes a contention like that and not agree with the other contention which is also true, that British citizens can go and live in Spain, Portugal, France, Greece or any other country and draw their benefits and pensions in those countries as well. A great number of my constituents are currently taking advantage of this.

Sir Teddy Taylor: I accept that my hon. Friend is a sincere person who has considered his views carefully. I hope that he will appreciate, with all these extra rights and entitlements, that if we had equal application of laws throughout a united Europe things would be much better for these people. Sadly, we do not have that equality of treatment. To illustrate what I mean, I ask him to look at agricultural policy and the way we have not equality but wide variation.
I ask my hon. Friends to look at the citizenship issue. It is not just a small question; this is the big stuff. Listen to Bob Marley. It is all there. Perhaps hon. Members do not know that Bob Marley was a great singer, a Rastafarian, and some of his songs are the most wonderful one could have. One of them tells the whole story of what Government say to us year after year: please do not worry about anything because everything is going to be all right. That is what we have been told time and time again, and every time it has blown up in our faces. I say to those hon. Members who are not worried about citizenship that it does not just mean voting in council elections. I ask them to think about the three-year review and about the fact that the Council of Ministers will be able to act without limit.
The Government may ask if we have no faith in them and in their ability to protect us, but that is not how the European Community works. The Government have to do nasty things to get agreement on other things. Hon. Members who doubt this should look at the 40-hour week directive. How many hon. Members know that we have already agreed that French bakers will be exempt but British bakers will not? Why? Not because we think it is sensible or right but because, in EC bargaining, one thing has to be given for another.
I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will think about this matter. There is no reason why they should or should not vote for the Liberal Democrats' amendment. It will make not the slightest bit of difference to anyone. It will have no impact, except that it might just make a money resolution possible.
I sincerely hope that, as they proceed through the Bill, hon. Members will think back to the Single European Act and all the pledges that were given, will think back to the treaty of Rome, and will think back to the time when the poor former Prime Minister was a great lady who said,"If you only give a wee bit more money to the CAP, we will wipe out all the mountains, we will start again, and the problems will not arise again." They are always going to arise.
The people who suffer are not people such as myself—they are not politicians. The people who suffer are the ordinary people of Britain who have suffered hugely, who have lost jobs, and who have found that the economy is part of a declining area of the world. Europe's share of world trade is going down and down, the economies of Europe are going down and down, and the ordinary people of Europe are suffering. We have to find some other way out. The other way out for me is to say no to

Maastricht and then, in respect of our present Prime Minister, to say, "Let us promote a treaty on real subsidiarity which would take powers back."
I am sorry that I have taken a bit longer than I expected, Mr. Lofthouse. You have seen that I was deliberately interrupted to try to keep the debate going. However, I should like to put across a simple message. Remember the threat to people, remember the injuries, and remember Bob Marley's song. If we remember that, we will remember that there is a big battle for the people of Britain, for democracy, for freedom and for liberty.

Mr. Benn: After listening to the past two days of debate, one thing has become clear in my mind, and that is that this issue divides every party and every country and could, in certain circumstances, realign British politics. That point needs to be made because, if anyone imagines that commitment to either side of the argument is shallow, he is quite wrong. There are some who are passionately committed to the federal Europe in its most unitary sense and always have been, and there are those—I am one of them—who believe that we are Members of Parliament only because our electors sent us to Parliament and that their rights must be paramount. They are very deep matters. The House of Commons is not the place to reach that decision.
After listening to the debate, with the many complex arguments—we have heard long and important speeches—it has become clear to me that those are matters that the public alone can determine.
I cannot see any reason for speaking in the debate other than to try as best I can to explore what the treaty means, to clarify its implications and to explain to the people who sent me here, in particular, what effect the treaty will have upon their lives and upon their future. I am here only because they have lent me powers, and I have no moral authority to give them away. I have told the Opposition Chief Whip that nothing in the world would alter my conviction, because one cannot ask an hon. Member to give away what he does not own. That is my position, and I say it in a way that I am sure the Committee will understand.
I am very glad that the Liberal Democrats have moved the amendment, because, whether people vote for or against it, it will make no difference; it will be embodied in the treaty. Therefore, the Liberal Democrats' amendment has merely provided for us the opportunity to have an extremely important debate which had to be held, and for that we must be grateful.
Before we examine the question of European union, we should look at the position of the House of Commons in deciding how to deal with the Bill. Much will be made of the subject of ratification and of a money resolution, but the House of Commons has been held in check by the Crown. I am not talking about the Queen and the royal family; I am talking about the Crown as a legal institution since the 17th century. It is important to understand that none of us can be Members of Parliament without taking an oath of allegiance to the Crown. I am a republican.

Mrs. Gorman: Yes.

Mr. Benn: When I went to the Table after the April general election, I said, "As a committed republican, I solemnly declare and affirm that I will bear faithful and true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, her


heirs and successors according to law," because that was what my electors told me to say when they elected me. At the same time, that was the Crown.
I now refer to the treaty itself. The matter is not as obscure as it might have appeared when I tried to develop the argument. How was the Foreign Secretary able to go to Maastricht and sign the treaty? It was because he had the authority of the Crown to sign the treaty. The Queen had given plenipotentiary powers to the Foreign Secretary, so the treaty was initialled—it has not yet been ratified—by the Foreign Secretary under Crown powers. We are not even allowed to discuss the Bill without the Queen's consent—the Crown's consent—because it touches on the prerogatives of the Crown.
I have introduced various Bills which touch on the prerogative, few of which have reached the statute book. I have had to write to the Home Secretary on each occasion and I have received letters from him saying that Her Majesty had graciously placed her prerogatives at the disposal of the House of Commons for the purpose of discussing this or that Bill. That is the next element of the Crown. Of course, if the Bill is passed, it will require the assent of the Crown—Royal Assent. We cannot have a referendum, we have been told, because the right to promote expenditure belongs to the Crown. That is why a money resolution cannot be tabled by a Back-Bench Member. Only the Crown, through the voice of a Secretary of State, can table a money resolution.
If the Bill becomes law, it will confer upon British Ministers greater prerogative powers in Brussels than they now have. Those laws passed by treaty-making powers of the Crown will be capable of wiping out legislation passed by both Houses of Parliament and assented to in a subordinate way by the Crown.
The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) gave an example of legislation that had been overridden by Common Market legislation—I think that it was the Bank of England Act 1946. I give him another example. In 1945, just after the atomic bomb was dropped, the post-war Government, with general consent, passed a resolution saying that all atomic material, including uranium, found in Britain belonged to the Government. Of course, Euratom is a federal system. When I raised the matter with Commissioner Brunner I was told, "I am sorry, but the Atomic Energy Act 1946 has now been subsumed in Euratom. Everything that we now do in Brussels is done by the Crown."
The reason why the House of Commons is frustrated is that, in terms of legislation, we are back to where we were before 1649. [Laughter.] Conservative Members laugh. I was on the Council of Ministers for five years—I was once the president. Every time I assented to everything, I assented by the powers of the Crown. I am not trying to provoke anybody. I am trying to explain to people outside why the House of Commons is impotent in the matter. It is already impotent because of the treaty of Rome, but it is a fact that all laws that are made in the union—that is what it is—and made with the assent of British Ministers will represent a growth of prerogative power.
Before we consider what the union might do to us in terms of our system of government, let us realise what that enterprise has done to us already in a strictly domestic context. The House of Commons has passed over to the Crown the powers of law making which it won hundreds of years ago, for which there is no parallel. In the first years in which I was a Member of Parliament, as far as I could

make out, there was no capacity for the Crown to make laws except within the very narrow domestic context as with security services, or whatever.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: When I catch the Chairman's eye, I hope to continue discussion of some of these points, but does the right hon. Gentleman accept that if the House of Commons votes down and damns this lamentable Bill, the treaty will be killed? Therefore, we can affect the use of prerogative power and the effects which the Government seek to bring about.

Mr. Benn: If we defeat the Bill, we can prevent the extension of prerogative power; but some of it has already slipped through our fingers, in 1972, without it ever being made explicit what was happening.
The last point that I make about Crown powers—I hope nobody will understand me—is that when Government Whips press Back-Bench Members to support a Bill, one weapon which they use is the granting or withholding of patronage under the powers of the Crown. I do not know much about the Conservative party, but I dare say that an elderly Conservative Member, planning to retire at the next election, might find it harder to have a peerage given to him if he voted against the Maastricht treaty, because knighthoods, baronetcies and peerages may be withheld according to the discipline of the Whips.
Indeed, for younger Members the prospect of getting a Crown appointment as a Minister of the Crown may be affected if there is disloyalty on the Maastricht treaty. I am told that in the Conservative party even an invitation to a royal garden party may be dangled or withdrawn if Members are not in line.
The point I am trying to make—and I am doing little more than giving an account of how this place works—is that when we look at a story from the beginning, through the legislation, through the ratification which is done by Crown prerogative, through to the pressure of the Whips, the Commons has never completed the work which it began in 1688. Therefore, for that reason if for no other, it is not a body capable of dealing with this act of union for which the Bill provides.

Mr. Garel-Jones: When the right hon. Gentleman was a distinguished holder of office under the Crown in the last, now distant, Labour Administration, had it become apparent to him at that time the way in which the Crown prerogative was being abused, and did he take steps at that time to make that known to his colleagues and try to rectify it, or has it become apparent to him, as it were, in later life?

Mr. Benn: The right hon. Gentleman invites me to make a speech twice as long as the one I intended to make. I was thrown out of Parliament by Crown prerogative. My father was made a peer, and when he died I was thrown out of the House because that prerogative had given me a peerage. The Speaker would not let me in. The right hon. Gentleman should not try to tell me that I just learnt this to make a speech tonight. That is an insult to me but also an insult to a life-long commitment to the democratic principle that I hope people accept.

Mr. Garel-Jones: I do not think anyone would put that in doubt. Indeed, the battle that the right hon. Gentleman


fought in those days was admired and, I think, supported by some of my hon. Friends. The question that I was asking was about the time when he was a Minister of the Crown and was exercising Crown prerogative as a Minister of the Crown. That is the question to which I was seeking an answer. Certainly I would not seek to question the right hon. Gentleman's commitment to the democratic process. I hope he did not understand that in any way.

Mr. Benn: I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman meant. If I responded strongly, it was because of the suggestion that I was cooking up a phoney argument to promote opposition to this Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman really wants to know, when I was made a Cabinet Minister and a Privy Councillor, and saw the Privy Councillor's oath, it was so revolting that I asked not to have to take it. It pledged me to all sorts of things about foreign prelates and potentates. The right hon. Gentleman has probably seen it. When I went to the Cabinet Office and it was read to me, I said at the end that I had never agreed to it. The clerk to the Privy Council said, "You do not have to agree." I said, "What do you mean?" He said, "I have administered the oath." I never knew that a Privy Councillor's oath was an injection. I did not want it; I did not agree; I got it administered, and all it does is occasionally, not always, give me a chance to speak in the House.
This is a point of substance. In 1968 I argued for a referendum. I may sound like Harold Wilson in remembering where it was, but it was at the Welsh conference of the Labour party in Llandudno. Some Cabinet colleagues demanded that I be dismissed from the Cabinet for mentioning a referendum. In the end I persuaded my party to go for it. My right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition voted for the referendum. The deputy Leader of the Opposition was a Whip who voted for a referendum. It all took time. We lost Roy Jenkins on the way. I do not know how to describe it, but he resigned because he did not want the public to be consulted.
I should like to come back to my line of argument, but I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that both on the renunciation of the peerage and on the referendum my commitment for many years has been that the people should decide who is to be their Member of Parliament and whether he should go.
Coming back to my argument, I can revert to my role as a lecturer for the Workers Educational Association. Let us look at what union would mean. There has been talk about citizenship and so on. Let me try to make it clear to those who might be watching the debate at home on television—the whole debate should be televised—that it makes a fundamental difference in the relationship between an elector and a Member of Parliament.
One reason that we do not have many riots in Britain is that people can have a say. Over many years I have said, "Do not riot; vote. You can defeat the Government. In that way you can change policy and you will achieve what you want by peaceful means." People do not realise that democracy hangs on a very slender, delicate thread. If the link is broken and people realise that, no matter for whom they vote in an election, decisions will be taken by the European union, I do not say that they will riot, but we

could not argue against action taken directly by them because there was no democratic route for the solution to their problem.

Mr. Michael Lord: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that one precious thing about the House of Commons is the way in which we as Members of Parliament can talk to our constituents when we are in our constituencies and come back the next week and get hold of Ministers to get things done? If we have a problem about, say, roads or hospitals, we can grab the Minister responsible and get something done. I represent an agricultural constituency. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, because our agricultural powers have been given to Europe, I as a Member representing farmers now have great difficulty in getting anything done for the people whom I represent? It goes exactly to the point that the right hon. Gentleman is making; frustration builds up not just among Members but among constituents. In many ways I feel that I am unable to do the job that I was sent here to do.

Mr. Benn: The hon. Gentleman points to a problem that has already arisen deriving from the treaty of Rome, which I do not want to go into because we are discussing its extension. He is right. The work of Members in their constituencies is one of the most unreported aspects of an hon. Member's life. I do not know how many letters other hon. Members receive. I assume that we all get approximately the same number. If they were grossed up, we would find that hundreds of thousands of representations made to hon. Members are never reported because the media is not interested in democracy but only in politicians, which is a different speciality.
I have sat in Cabinets when papers have come from Ministers written by their civil servants. Other Ministers may say, "It may look good to the Department of Health but it would not deal with the problem that came up at my surgery last Friday." That relationship is important. It educates Members, and we represent our constituents' views.
Another point which has not been touched on is that, because of the way law making is done in the Community, even if it is by qualified majority, it is easy to make a law but there has to be the same majority or unanimity to repeal it.
For many years it has rightly been a principle of this House that no Parliament can bind its successors. In European union every decision binds its successors because one cannot change it. Even if a British Government were elected on the issue of repealing a piece of this legislation, prospective Members of Parliament would not be able to tell the electorate that they would repeal it because the mechanism to do so would not exist. European Community legislation is like a lobster pot—it is easy to get in but very difficult to get out.
I do not have to dwell at great length on the second aspect of the treaty as I have dealt with it already. The Council of Ministers is a Parliament and not a Cabinet—it makes the laws. It is the only Parliament in the world to meet in secret.
During the British presidency in 1977, I tabled a motion that the Council should meet in public. Ministers would have died rather than agree. They all went to the Council, saying that they were going to defend this or that. When they got there they did all the deals and did not want


anyone to know what happened. It is as if this Parliament met in secret. From that point of view the Council is totally undemocratic—but decisions made there by British Ministers are made by royal prerogative in any case.
The third difference is that between the elected and appointed part of our constitution. Anyone who has been a Minister knows that civil servants work to a Minister. They may be difficult, but one can tell them, "I want this paper put to the Cabinet."
At the Council of Ministers no one is allowed to submit a paper. Ministers can only act on the initiative of the Commission. I have sat on every committee that I can think of—from the local party to the national executive and the shadow Cabinet—but the Council of Ministers is the only committee where, even as president for energy, I could not submit a paper to the other Members because the powers of initiation are vested in the Commission. That will be a fundamental change and it is not altered in any way by the Maastricht treaty.
At the Council, Ministers have to try to bully Commissioners who are appointed to submit a paper in the hope that their idea may come back before it.

Mr. Spearing: rose—

Mr. Benn: I do not want to take too long, as I am trying to get a lot into one speech, but I shall give way.

Mr. Spearing: Is not that argument vital? It is an illustration of why so many of us say that the European Community is intrinsically authoritarian. The authority for any initiative lies with the Commission. Furthermore, it is important for title I, as in articles A to F, and the two pillars—home and foreign affairs—it is written in the treaty that the Commission shall be fully associated with these matters and has the duty of co-ordinating the totality.

Mr. Benn: My hon. Friend is opening up the question very fully. It is true that the Commission has great powers. I shall give the House two examples. Viscount Davignon, who was the Commissioner for industry, and Guido Brunner told me, when I was an elected Secretary of State, that I could not insist that North sea oil he refined in Britain, and that that oil should come under the terms of the treaty of Rome. Secondly, I tried to continue a scheme introduced by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) when he was Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, whereby he supported Scottish industries working in North sea oil—it got a slightly lower rate of interest. [Interruption.]

The First Deputy Chairman: Will those hon. Members holding a sub-committee on the other side of the Bar please hold it outside the Chamber?

Mr. Benn: That is subsidiarity at work—one just goes on talking and no one takes any notice.
The Commissioners told me that if I continued the scheme introduced by the former party leader they would take me to court—and they did. They chose polling day in 1979, when I was on my bicycle anyway.
Do not think that the power of the Commission to initiate actions to frustrate an elected Government in Britain is not real—it is. I can imagine circumstances when a Government, elected by a huge majority—it does not matter of which party—to do something, did it and was

then told by civil servants, "I'm sorry, Minister, what you are doing is illegal." What would happen if the elected Government were not able to carry forward their policy? There would be a major constitutional crisis.

Mrs. Gorman: rose—

Mr. Benn: I shall give way when I have finished the analysis.
The treaty transfers power from politicians to the courts. In Europe, courts are different from those in Britain. They are political and do not pretend to be impartial, as they do here. The continental legal tradition is that law is a new way to implement constitutions and policies. Elected British Ministers could be taken to the court on citizenship, or on any other issue, and they would find that their power had been transferred—from the electorate and Parliament—to judges. Once one got into that situation, one would not be able to get out of it.
I am not misery-mongering, but trying to look ahead at the nature of the constitution and of the political crises that could lie ahead if we made such changes.
One only has to listen to some of the speeches on the issue to realise that the Bill is advocated by people of a managerial bent. I see myself as a representative: I am here to represent the people. I hear many of those who advocate the treaty say that they view the handling of Europe as the good management of Europe. They say that we must manage the exchange rate, trade, this or that. I have no doubt that most of them would be well qualified to be Commissioners. However, managers without consent never get very far, even in industry.
Those five changes in relationship—between the electors and Members, between Members and the Government, between the legislature and the executive, between the Commons and the Commission, between the political and judicial and the representative and managerial—are all inherent in the treaty. People must not merely troop in at the end of the Third Reading; they must understand what the treaty is about. Because of the nature of the changes, I believe that the public and the electors, who put us here, must decide whether they wish them to be made.

Mrs. Gorman: The right hon. Gentleman has in part dealt with my point—which is that there is a fundamental difference in the way in which law is construed in this country. We have the common law, by practice, from the people and upward. The continental system is decided by codes and handed down from above, as the right hon. Gentleman illustrated. In our system of government we have a tradition of "by the people and for the people", whereas they have a tradition of government of the people. That is quite different from the way in which we view our citizenship.

Mr. Benn: If the hon. Lady heard what I said about the role of the Crown, she would realise that I do not share her view that we are very democratic; but that is another matter. The continental system is different and the laws cannot be changed by the mechanism with which we have become familiar for many years.

Mr. Dalyell: I do not know whether it is a term of abuse, but I am surprised to be accused of being of "managerial bent". Does that bent also apply to the overwhelming majority at the Labour party conference?

Mr. Benn: I shall come to the Labour party in a moment—I have to be delicate about it. If I had any doubt about my hon. Friend, it would be that his towering intellect may so induce him to observe the scene from the top that managerial ideas might enter into his mind, although I know that he is a good constituency Member of Parliament.
To sum up, Bagehot, in his book on the English constitution, said that the Crown was the dignified and the House of Commons the effective part of the constitution. Now the Crown is the effective and the House of Commons is the dignified. Crown powers now determine our policy, but the Commons has all the glory of television, the Speaker and all the glamour of our debates. But we are simply performing a dignified function. That is the nature of the transformation that has taken place since 1972.

Mr. Hoon: My right hon. Friend rightly criticises the fact that only the Commission currently has the right to initiate legislation in the European Community. Does that mean that he supports the provision in the Maastricht treaty that enhances the European Parliament's ability to initiate legislation? Does it follow from his criticism that he wants the European Parliament to initiate more legislation in the future?

Mr. Benn: I want the Commission abolished, because no civilised democratic country would allow any power whatever to be in the hands of unelected people who cannot be removed. I have drafted a Bill, which my hon. Friend may have seen, called the Commonwealth of Europe Bill, under which we would have a secretary-general and would harmonise the 50 countries of Europe by consent through an assembly. The assembly would agree to conventions to which member states would adhere.
The United States would never agree to be governed by commissioners. If we were to have a fully federal united states of Europe, the first casualty would be the Commission, the second would be the Council of Ministers, and the treaty of Maastricht would be burned as the British flag was burned in 1776. So please do not tell me that the treaty is a route to democracy. It is a pathway back to the feudal past.
One of our difficulties is that all the party leaders agree about the Maastricht treaty. I realise that there is a difference on the social chapter and economic and monetary union, but if party leaders were in a Cabinet of all the talents, the Bill would go through in two minutes. The Labour leader would simply add the social chapter in the event of Labour winning an election, which is why the Opposition Front Bench is almost deserted. I think that the Opposition's tactics are to have a one-line Whip so that the Bill will go through with a Government majority. Otherwise, we would have a crowded Front Bench eager to hear my speech and make their own.
I must explore the problem raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) about the Labour party's position. If we are to explore how decisions are reached, I must explore with him how the Labour party's decision was reached. I am on the national executive and have been for longer than anyone in the Labour party's history. I voted against the manifesto at the March meeting because we were told that the party was in favour of the Maastricht treaty, despite the fact that it

had not been signed at the time of the previous conference and had not even then been published in English. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and I made no fuss, but voted against the manifesto, as the executive record shows. When I went to Chesterfield, I took the precaution of getting somebody to make a video of my speech explaining my view on Europe. I honestly do not believe that there is Labour support for the Maastricht treaty.
At the 1992 annual conference, a Bolsover delegate put forward a motion about a referendum. I argued for it at the conference and Alan Tuffin of the Union of Communication Workers argued and voted against it. I discovered later that his delegation had voted for the referendum.
If we are to discuss how Parliament works, we had better also discuss how the party works. The hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) may rub his hands, but the truth can never be harmful when we are discussing the future government of the country. I am lucky because I cannot be bullied by the Whips. If they offered me a peerage, they would be misjudging my ambitions. I do not need cash and will not get office. I am a free man. Had I known what fun it was to be 60 years old, I would have done it years ago. I intend to speak my mind. For me, the Bill is about whether we shall remain an imperfect democracy or become part of a Euro nationalism. Euro nationalism is being put around our necks under an authoritarian system.

Mr. Michael Carttiss: I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman considers himself fortunate in a way that I would not normally have done: at least he had a party conference at which the members of his party had an opportunity to debate the issue and reach conclusions. That is more than what happened to my party.

Mr. Benn: I once attended a Conservative party conference in 1955 for the BBC. Enoch Powell and I went along and I had a research assistant who is sitting behind me, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore). I have never forgotten the atmosphere, which was quite different from that of the Labour party. Nobody discussed politics after the conference had adjourned. They all put on evening dress and had dinner.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. This is all very entertaining, but the Committee has sufficient problems without dealing with party mechanics.

Mr. Benn: I was responding to a problem put to me by the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Carttiss) about his party. I was trying to explain that it is an old problem.
I believe passionately in Europe. I lost a brother and many friends in the last world war and I share the view that Europe must get beyond nationalism. We must explore ways of co-operating.
Europe contains 50 countries, not just 12. I want harmonisation to be at the pace of those who can go along with it, for a practical reason. It is already clear that, because of the existing Community institutions, when anything goes wrong people blame the Germans. It is the fault not of the Germans but of the treaty of Rome. There has been hostility towards the Italians. The awful wartime


language spoke of the huns, the wops, and the Iti's, and, reading The Sun, one sees that we are not far from that now.
Democratic consent is delicate. Therefore, if we try to hurry beyond the capacity to absorb and accept the implications, I fear that the matter will end like Yugoslavia, which was an imposed federation, or the so-called "socialist camp" of communist countries, which was imposed. I know that it is not exactly the same. but the problems of unemployment are caused not by the Germans, but by the role of bankers in forcing down economic policy to the point where there is mass unemployment. We must keep our eye on the real issue and not allow it to degenerate into an attack on other nationalities.
Why have the British people allowed the treaty to go so far? I am no historian, but we were conquered by a Roman, Julius Caesar; we were then conquered by William the Conqueror in 1066; James I was then brought down from Scotland; William III then came over from Holland; and George I, who was a German, then ruled. Indeed, until the first world war, the royal family was called Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. It changed its name to Windsor and got rid of some German dukes—the Duke of Cumberland was de-duked. I went into the matter to see whether I could get the same right. We now have a Prince of Wales whose father is a Greek.
Thus, we have as a nation been trained to accept that we shall be governed by other nationalities. Because of the defect in our democracy, Britain has a culture of subservience that makes us accept that Jacques Delors should have those powers. When Jacques Delors came to Britain, the BBC asked him whether we were good Europeans, bowing and scraping to him like the Dimblebys bow and scrape to the royal family. We are a nation trained to bow and scrape, so, naturally, when we are told that the Crown prerogative will ratify the treaty, people say, "How could we be unkind to the Queen Mother?", as if she were ratifying the treaty. It will be ratified not by the Queen Mother but by the godfather in No. 10. It is a matter of national confidence.
Hon. Members have asked how we can deny the Danes or other member states the right to the social chapter by voting against it. No rights were ever given to anybody from the top. All rights have been won. If the Danes want rights, they must elect a Government that will give them those rights and we should have to do the same. We sit at home watching "Newsnight" and Peter Snow with his ruddy computer and are told that Jacques Delors has given us social justice. That is absolute rubbish. All our rights, including the right to vote, to trade unions, to the welfare state and to full employment, were struggled for by our people using our mechanism.
8 pm
The idea that somehow the third world will benefit if we enter this arrangement is an illusion. It is not true, and it encourages the idea that we are no good. I have never believed in the conspiracy theory, but I do not believe that democracy is such a powerful force that some people have wanted to try to take it back. Not long ago the suffragettes had their problems. I put a plaque in the broom cupboard in the Crypt to the memory of Emily Wilding Davidson. There are no memorials in this place to the people who fought for democracy.
The best way to get round democracy is to pass the real power to someone who is not elected and cannot be removed. This treaty is an anti-chartist, anti-suffragette campaign. We have been told for years that this nation is not good enough to govern itself, that it has to be governed from Brussels. We have been told that we cannot defend ourselves but must have NATO, and that we cannot organise our economy and must have the IMF. We are told that this is a nation of lazy workers—militant shop stewards, inefficient managers and football hooligans—a nation waiting for discipline. Of course, the discipline will come from Europe.
I apologise for making such a long speech, and I hope that no hon. Member will accuse me of trying to delay the debate. I genuinely try to argue without being offensive to anyone. These are big questions. I have spoken to Mr. Morris again about a referendum being paid for by the Community because we must find a way to give people that right. We are not entitled to decide this matter ourselves. If we do and people turn against the treaty, there will be no mechanism by which they could share the responsibility for a decision that affected their lives.
I beg all hon. Members—those who are for, as well as those who are against, the Maastricht treaty—to agree with the principle that the matter must be determined by everybody in our land. All the arguments could be taken to the people, and they are not so foolish that they could not absorb and understand them. We are talking about their lives, not ours.

Mr. John Butcher: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, which I assure you is a real one. Yesterday through the courtesy of the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), and with the indulgence of the Chair, there was a fairly complex exchange, almost an interrogation, on the question of whether title I bit on some parts of the treaty and prevented certain parts of it being enforceable in law in this country. I genuinely seek guidance on this point because it will determine whether title I of the treaty can be debated in the terms in which many of us wish it to be debated. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State was entirely correct to say that under article L, title I is not justiciable by the European Court. That is reported in columns 183–84 of yesterday's Official Report.
There is contrary legal advice that it would be taken into account in interpreting all those parts of the treaty that are amendments to the treaty of Rome and subsequent associated treaties. Title I is binding in international law, and although it may not be justiciable in the terms that my right hon. Friend announced, that is not the same as saying that it is not binding. I have a document which should be tabled for our elucidation. It is the Van Gend En Loos judgment of the European Court of 5 February 1963. It follows—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. It is not the Chair's job to interpret the Bill or the law. Therefore, that is not a point of order for the Chair.

Mr. Butcher: Further to that point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. Is it not a matter for the Chair that the debate should proceed on a basis of clear understanding of the constitutional implications of title I? I have a terrible fear that even in the area of foreign policy cited by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, the clauses, if traced


through the treaty, could bind us to foreign policy by majority voting. That should be explained to the Committee because we have been given the impression that that is not the case.

The First Deputy Chairman: That is a matter that can be raised in the debate, and if the hon. Gentleman is successful in catching my eye he will be able to put that point.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: As usual the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) delivered a fascinating and fundamental speech. He always treats us to such speeches and we are grateful. At the start of it he alluded to the amendments but did not reach them because he was carried away by other issues. Those of us who wished to refer to some of the themes presented in the amendment tabled by the Liberal Democrats and related amendments found, as we usually find, that the Committee descends, generally on the second day, into a general and broad Second Reading debate. Some hon. Members return to such issues as whether it is right to be a member of the Community while others, including me, say that it is a good idea.
That is both good and bad, although it involves the constant tedious repetition of points that are made in almost every European debate. I exclude late night debates under the old system of scrutiny. If people outside pay attention to our debates, they do not seem to have become alarmed over the years about the so-called surrender of national and constitutional rights that were mentioned repeatedly by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield. I do not think that people as a whole share his anxieties.
I have always paid tribute to the profundity of the right hon. Gentleman's thoughts and I recently re-read the excellent biography by Sydney Higgins about the right hon. Gentleman's political life and work. According to that writer, the right hon. Gentleman hardly ever did anything wrong. The right hon. Gentleman personifies the proud struggle for the achievement of parliamentary rights in the more modern context and more traditionally in his emotional and intellectual attachment to the old historical rights that Parliament has won.
Those who are keen to see the legislation proceed rapidly feel entitled to complain about the Government's timidity and slowness in dealing with an entirely brief, routine technical Bill. It provides for certain provisions to enter United Kingdom law and the amendments to the treaties that we have already signed. That would be followed by ratification of the treaty, although that is not the subject of this debate.
The Government could have proceeded much earlier this year after Second Reading. We know, either by speculation or from direct knowledge, the rather sad reasons why that was not done. That has given the right hon. Gentleman and others who see terrors in the gradual development of the European Community through this latest treaty the excuse or reason to say that the nightmare is developing beyond the control of the British people and constitution.
Those of us who welcome the Maastricht treaty disagree profoundly and directly, as everybody knows. Our advantage is that the huge majority of hon. Members are on our side and that none of them shares the terrors,

anxieties and apprehensions of a small minority of hon. Members. At present most of that small minority are Conservatives, but the thread of the speech by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield was that the Labour party might start to unravel some of its solidarity on these matters and show that it is not quite capable of holding what appears to be the strong position of Labour Front-Bench spokesmen.
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) who delivered an excellent speech yesterday.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: My hon. Friend was solid.

Mr. Dykes: Perhaps the thread of the hon. Lady's thoughts will also turn out to be correct.
The hon. Member for Hamilton explained why the amendments were incorrect and should not be accepted, in spite of the impeccable credentials of the Liberal Democrats in European matters. That is not the same as saying that the amendments were intrinsically faulty.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: My hon. Friend may have forgotten that, although it may be only a small majority of Conservative Members who oppose the Maastricht Bill, the one thing that strengthens their case is that the majority of people outside this place support them. It is extremely arrogant for hon. Members to talk in that way when the people have not had their voice heard, nor been given an opportunity to voice their concerns. At the last general election, Maastricht was not an issue. The very fact that it was not discussed—the only issue at the last election was who should govern Britian, it was a simple election—meant the people of the country have not had a voice in this matter. They have also had no opportunity to make their voice heard through a referendum, which has been refused by the Government for the simple reason that they know that the issue would be defeated.

Mr. Dykes: All that I can do is express a profound sense of shock that my hon. Friend wishes to undermine the sacred constitutional sovereignty of the House. The right hon. Member for Chesterfield is in favour of a referendum, as are a small number of hon. Members on both sides of the House—[Interruption.] Sedentary interruptions are often more disconcerting than standing ones, but for the moment I shall carry on. If the opportunity provides itself, I shall give way later to the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell).
A small minority of Members of Parliament is in favour of a referendum, but I can think of nothing that more undermines the sacred constitutional sovereignty of the House of Commons—the centre and kernel of political parliamentary power as described by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield.

Mrs. Winterton: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Dykes: No. My hon. Friend's intervention was lengthy and verging on the repetitious, and I must be allowed to reply. That a referendum would undermine the sovereignty of the House is a fundamental error in my hon. Friend's argument. The other mistake which is joined to that—[Interruption.] I am now facing the Chair, Mr. Lofthouse. I am placed in a difficult position because the line between my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) and the Chair is direct. The other


fundamental error made conjointly by those who are in favour of a referendum is that waiting for the Danes' opinion would also undermine our sacred constitutional sovereignty. I object to the idea that we must wait for the opinion of others before we decide what to do.
I wish to emphasise to the right hon. Member for Chesterfield, lest he gets the wrong impression, that the pro-Europeans are in favour of the treaty because we do not feel that we are surrendering power to anybody else by signing it and by developing the Community further, and because we feel that it strengthens our sovereign power. The right hon. Gentleman explained the old theory of the House of Commons at work. His description was like one of those old books by Taylor, "The House of Commons At Work: How it Really Works". He was not explaining the real world. However, I agreed with his second reason for the slipping away of power from Members of Parliament with their sacred trusts and rights—the power of the whipping system. Unless one is part of the majority in the House, one does not have power and even if one is a member of the majority party, one does not have power in the complexity of modern politics in which power flows to governmental institutions.
I am reassured about the developments, about signing the Maastricht treaty and about approving this excellent but short and technical Bill—a process that should not take so long, although I would not deny the House of Commons its rights—because none of those dangers and perils would occur if we went ahead with them. I see the sovereign member states of the European Community working much more together but gaining in individual national strength as a result of that process. I am surprised that the right hon. Member for Chesterfield, who years ago was an enthusiast for the European Community, has not begun to accept that explanation of the real world rather than the abstruse romantic theorising about the House of Commons as it was hoping to be several hundred years ago.

Mr. Bill Walker: Did my hon. Friend support the referendum on the Scotland Act? If so, what was different about that?

Mr. Dykes: There are many different complexities about those matters, and we are talking about a referendum on Europe in the context of what my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton said. She claimed that it was invalid just to take the views of Members of Parliament—a surprising assertion in view of the sacred nature of Members of Parliament in the constitutional process—if all the parties apparently agreed and the general election therefore did not provide the opportunity for the matters fully to be debated. I disagree with that. All that told me was that all the political parties agreed that signing Maastricht was a good thing, as was going ahead with European development.

Mr. Ronnie Campbell: The hon. Gentleman is obviously a complete European and would vote for it if it came in a little package with a bow around it. Does he agree that the fundamental point for people in the United Kingdom is that the Maastricht treaty changes every aspect of their lives? Does he further agree that the decision on that should be taken by them and not by the House under the whipping system?

Mr. Dykes: The House is the place where the decisions should be made. The hon. Gentleman and I, as true democrats, would lament the excessive power of the whipping system. The modern organisation of the state, and the need, in the intensity and complexity of modern politics, to marshal collective decision making by politicians in groups has meant the strengthening of the whipping system over the years.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Dykes: I shall not give way too much as Mr. Lofthouse will become impatient with me if I go on for too long, and I am trying to speak to the amendment.
The hon. Member for Blyth Valley and I worry about the excessive power of the whipping system. We all know that we have little say in practical terms, but no hon. Member can assert that the treaty is the only treaty that the country has signed that has brought in relatively, fairly or reasonably profound changes. We have signed many treaties involving many changes. I reject the doom-laden assertion that there is something extra specially ominous and difficult about the Maastricht treaty. It is the logical conclusion of the preparation that this and other sovereign countries have made together, ever since the Stuttgart declaration of June 1983, to go forward to the development of European union, which had already been referred to in the treaty of Rome.

Dr. Michael Clark: My hon. Friend has just suggested that a referendum would undermine the traditional sovereignty of the House. Does he not think that the traditional sovereignty of the House has been undermined by Members of Parliament who are not representing the country on this issue? If they were doing so, there would not be this call for a referendum. Because the House is failing the country, the country is seeking another way to express its view.

Mr. Dykes: I reject that totally. I am saddened that my hon. Friend, who is also a personal friend, seeks to undermine what is left of the powers of the House—

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Exactly.

Mr. Dykes: By that, I do not mean what is left because of Europe but what is left as a result of the practical reality of modern-day politics. The same pattern is repeated in every other country—the Executive have gained more and more power and Parliaments have become not just dignified and ceremonial, in the words of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield, but bodies in which individual Members of Parliament have lost their powers.
Some people would say that it was ever thus because only in the last century or so have Parliaments developed from being advisory chambers of nobles, with monarchs running the country. Parliament has taken many decisions on behalf of the people, decisions of much greater profundity, moment and weight than the signing of an additional treaty, which flows from the treaty of Rome, the Stuttgart declaration and the Single European Act. That Act was a much more profound document—

Mr. Harry Barnes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Dykes: I should like to develop this point, but I shall give way in a moment.
Admittedly the central legislative component of that Act was the single European market but all the others in the six key policy areas were anticipated and mentioned clearly and unequivocally in the Single European Act—and only one or two hon. Members called for a referendum.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Dykes: I will in a moment.

Mr. Winterton: I have been trying to catch my hon. Friend's eye.

Mr. Dykes: I am aware of that but, as my hon. Friend knows, I must address the Chair as part of the rules of this excellent and distinguished Chamber.
One could say that war and peace are far more profound and should always be the subject of a referendum. It is nonsense to argue that there must be a referendum simply because all parties agree on a particular policy element. In all general elections, there are many policy areas where there is unanimity or broad agreement, and no one suggests that means there should be a referendum. I will refer to one other aspect of a referendum that has put off some Opposition Members after giving way to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Ian Taylor: Many of my hon. Friends believe that the treaty is a matter for Parliament and not a suitable subject for a referendum. A referendum would not deal in detail with the complex nature of the Bill, which is shown by the number of amendments that have been tabled. Is my hon. Friend aware that he is supported in chapter 21 of "Erskine May", on page 523:
Amendments to a Bill proposing that the provisions of a Bill should be subject to a referendum have been ruled out of order as proposing changes in legislative procedure which would be contrary to constitutional practice.
Referendums are not part of our country's constitutional practice. Ours is a parliamentary democracy, and this is the right place to debate the Bill.

Mr. Dykes: To upstage even "Erskine May", no less an authority than my noble Friend Lady Thatcher denounced the idea of a referendum in 1974 and 1975, but one was imposed on a reluctant Parliament by the then Labour Government. I voted against a referendum then, and—[Interruption.]

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. It is noticeable that when one particular point of view is expressed, it is given a reasonable hearing but that a contrary point of view is not. Every right hon. and hon. Member must be given a fair hearing.

Mr. Dykes: Equally, Mr. Lofthouse, I was anxious to give way as much as possible to interventions, which may have added to the excitement of the debate.
I also want to show that not all right hon. and hon. Members will simply take the official line—though I wholeheartedly support my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Cabinet and in the Government, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, in proposing that the treaty be ratified.

Mr. Winnick: How surprising.

Mr. Dykes: I suppose that is not at all surprising.
Earlier this year, I warned Government colleagues about unnecessary hesitation in respect of this legislation. It is a most modest Bill. I am not being undemocratic in saying that. It is a routine, technical Bill, and I suggest that most of the amendments should have been ruled out of order.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I was speaking theoretically, Mr. Lofthouse, and did not mean to question the decision of the Chair. I wanted to emphasise that because of the Bill's purely technical nature, as it is simply the instrument for amending European legislation—

Mr. Butcher: rose—

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: rose—

Mr. Dykes: I am entitled to express my personal view, which is also the view of others.
The European Movement, of which I am chairman and whose members include European enthusiasts of all parties and none—including trade unionists, businessmen, and members of the young European movement—also warned that if the Government were negative about defending the Community and the treaty, more and more second thoughts would set in, which would naturally affect the public.
It is interesting to crystallise and to explain public opinion. I do not believe that the public are intrinsically anti-European Community, but United Kingdom citizens of all backgrounds, professions, and trades have a grotesque fear, which I understand, of losing their jobs and of living and surviving in the recession. People naturally lose their enthusiasm for anything that they regard as irrelevant international exercises of one kind or another. In any event, such issues are always left to a small number of enthusiasts—

Mr. Spearing: rose—

Mr. Ken Livingstone: rose—

Mr. Dykes: I will not give way for the moment.
As the Government's hesitations and timidity—and I am sorry to use those words—gathered pace, the Bill became more and more delayed. Even five weeks ago my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary said in a broadcast, "Let's get this Bill through before Christmas." Even five or six weeks ago, that seemed a reasonable aspiration.

Mr. Terry Lewis: The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that he had not read it.

Mr. Dykes: He said that he had not read the treaty. The Bill was then in draft form, and extremely brief. Presumably everyone read the one-page Bill.
The Government's timidity and hesitation added to the problem of appearing to be legitimately enthusiastic about taking the treaty's policies forward.
There have been ridiculous and absurd attacks on the European Commission. Only recently have my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and one or two other Ministers begun to defend it, saying that all the ridiculous stories about the Commission are either made up or so exaggerated as to be absurd.

Mr. Spearing: Will the hon. Gentleman give way now?

Mr. Dykes: I give way to the former Chairman of the European Legislation Select Committee.

Mr. Spearing: The hon. Gentleman criticised my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) for going over broad ground that could have been covered at any time during the past 20 years. Has not the hon. Gentleman been doing much the same thing up to now? In his capacity as chairman of the European Movement—as the hon. Gentleman knows, I respect his opinion—will he explain why he and that movement advocate the provisions in articles A to F?

Mr. Dykes: The hon. Gentleman is incorrect to suggest that I am not dealing with the elements in the amendments, because I am. I was giving the background to my reasons for considering them unrealistic. I do not know what will happen to the first cluster of Liberal Democrat amendments proposed yesterday. They may not be voted upon. They may be withdrawn—I cannot anticipate what will happen with them. That shows that the Committee is going through the motions as a result of the desperately anxious wishes of a small minority of hon. Members who want to go through all the original points again.

Mr. Livingstone: The hon. Gentleman says that the Committee is going through the motions, but a moment ago mentioned fear of unemployment. Does he recall going through the Lobby to support the first stage of monetary union—Britain's entry into the exchange rate mechanism—after many right hon. and hon. Members warned that it would create another 1 million unemployed within a year or two? That is the reason for fear in this country. People see themselves being locked into permanently high unemployment and permanent recession. Does the hon. Gentleman agree it was wrong of him not to listen to us two years ago?

Mr. Dykes: The hon. Gentleman is mistaken about the timing of this country's entry into the ERM. I was in favour of Britain's entering it much earlier—probably four years before, when we would have joined at a much more realistic valuation. The ERM is still working. Far too many of my right hon. and hon. Friends and Opposition Members imagine that the ERM means irrevocably fixed exchange rates, but it does not. It is a system of fixed but adjustable rates by agreement with all its participating members. I will give way to my patient hon. Friend.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My hon. Friend is a long-serving Member of Parliament, having entered it in 1970, so does he not recall that it has agreed to a range of referendums since then? I refer not only to the renegotiation of the treaty of Rome—albeit under a Labour Government—but devolution in Scotland, devolution in Wales and, on at least two occasions, devolution in Northern Ireland.
In each instance, Parliament rightly asked the people who would be affected by those dramatic changes to voice their opinion. Will my hon. Friend give an honest answer as to why he believes that in the case of the Maastricht treaty, which will—as the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) said—dramatically change the constitution and way of life of the people of this country, the people will not be allowed to cast their vote even in an advisory referendum so that Parliament will know their thoughts?
My hon. Friend has also told the House that he believes that there have been unnecessary and vicious attacks upon the Commission. Will he comment upon the extraordinarily partisan position adopted by the President of the Commission, Mr. Jacques Delors, to the Uruguay round and the GATT treaty, which is vital to free trade throughout the world, not just to free trade within Europe?

Mr. Dykes: It is not my task in the debate to defend Jacques Delors.

Mr. Winterton: My hon. Friend has been doing just that.

Mr. Dykes: No. I was referring to the Commission as a body. The idea that the Commission is far too powerful is untrue. It is an inherently weak body. It has the constitutional task of proposing legislation to be submitted to the Council of Ministers, but the Council of Ministers is the boss; it makes the decisions. The Commission often grumbles about that reality. It would like those decisions to be more pan-European, and it is entitled to its aspirations. It is becoming more and more lumbered not with its own initiatives but with suggestions flowing from the Council of Ministers, the European Council and particularly from the most dangerous development of all—the grand Saturday night dinner at the European summit where such wonderful claret is consumed that they grow expansive and say, "Let's have another report from the Commission on such-and-such a subject."
I have already referred to the referendum, and I do not propose to deal with it again.

Mr. Winterton: Why not?

Mr. Dykes: Because I have already referred to it.

Mr. Winterton: But my hon. Friend has not answered the point.

Mr. Dykes: I repeat that we made the mistake of entering the exchange rate mechanism too high and too late. The Government are unwilling now to confront what is effectively only a very small number of real hard-core rebels, some of whose arguments are dishonest and frighten the people outside this place. Those errors and omissions mean that the Bill is being debated now in Committee instead of several months ago. Although I have already made the point, it is legitimate to repeat briefly that I regret the slowness with which this issue has been dealt with.
I regret, too, the timidity of the Government. As a keen European, I make no apologies for saying that. I want to reassure those who are terrified and trembling about what foreigners are planning for us next—probably fluoride in the water without the House being able to vote upon it—by saying that I believe that the activities of the House of Commons should, in the constitutional sense, be strengthened. Therefore, I very much welcome the greater participation and involvement of national Parliaments in the plurality and dispersal of power, the consideration of new policies and decision making. That is the hallmark of the European Community.
Timidity is also shown in the document that I am holding. I make no complaint about its contents. It is helpful. It explains the background lucidly. It is similar to


the traditional notes on clauses. It reiterates also some of the elements, though in more detail, of a smaller pamphlet that again was issued rather late in the day. The pamphlet could have been published earlier this year. I do not understand why the Government took so long to publish it. Their printing system is supposed to be extremely efficient.
The tone of this document is very negative, as though, once again, the Government are nervous and apprehensive about a small minority of little Englanders. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] They want to live in the past.

Mr. Winterton: That is a cheap remark.

Mr. Dykes: No, it is not a cheap remark. It shows the sad reality of the political situation.

Mr. Winterton: It is arrogant.

Mr. Dykes: No, it is not arrogant, either.

Mr. Winterton: My hon. Friend is pompous.

Mr. Dykes: The tone of the document is a little too negative. Apart from that, I commend it. Its tone, however, could be much more enthusiastic.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) is not in the Chamber. Perhaps he is rehearsing yet another blockbuster that will alienate even more opinion outside the House on European matters. My hon. Friend was interrupted constantly, just like me, so he did not have a chance to develop the theme, but in his closing remarks today—he obeyed the sagacious admonition of the Chair to be brief because he had had a blockbuster yesterday—he began to refer to what the Bundestag had decided. Again it was a wonderful example—I listened very carefully to my hon. Friend and I shall look tomorrow at what he said to make sure that I have got it right—of either deliberately or accidentally misleading the House. I use that phrase with reluctance. One does not like to say that about one's colleagues.
Far be it from us to wait on what other national Parliaments may do. We have our own national self-confidence. We should not worry about what those wicked foreigners think, though it is funny how we are hanging so closely on what the Danes think. Last week I was in Copenhagen. Every person to whom I spoke in the Folketing asked me, "Why are the British waiting for us? Why don't they go ahead? It's nothing to do with us." They also said, "Yes, we confidently expect a yes result this time."

Mr. Winnick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Dykes: No, not at the moment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford gave the impression that the Bundestag had had massive second thoughts about Maastricht, ratification of the treaty and all the rest of it. Far from it. One should refer to the account of the debate that is already in the news media. Colleagues have told me about it while the debate proceeds. Ratification—the final stage in the Bundestag—was a triumphant endorsement of Maastricht. There was a huge majority for the Bill in the Bundestag. There were no second thoughts. All that they did in their debate was to clarify the particular relationship of the Bundesrat to the Bundestag and the relationship of the lander to the

federal Government and the federal constitution. There were no second thoughts. The final ministerial speech—details of it have been faxed to me, so I do not have it word for word—was an exhortation: now that we have ratified Maastricht, we hope that it will encourage the Danes and the British to do so as quickly as possible. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford—I shall tell him that I have referred to his remarks—did not say that at all. He said that the Germans had had huge second thoughts on Europe.

Mr. Butcher: My hon. Friend has been most courteous in giving way, but he was very provocative when he said that this was a routine and technical Bill. I ask my hon. Friend to accept what the Government are telling us: that transfers of sovereignty are involved and that there is considerable dispute about whether sovereignty will be transferred in areas that so far have been described as being outside the treaty. It is not a routine and technical Bill. To pretend otherwise is to do my hon. Friend's own cause, which he has honourably espoused, a disservice. Let him be absolutely open about the move towards the transfer of further powers. Let us not pretend that the Bill is routine and technical.

The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I deprecate very long interventions.

Mr. Dykes: The problem is that I have to try to face you in your Chair, Dame Janet, and my hon. Friend. I think that my hon. Friend has misunderstood the position. I was not being discourteous when I said that the Bill was technical and brief, which it literally is. All I am saying is that all those arguments were presumably aired during the earlier stages, including Second Reading. The conclusion must therefore be that, in the absence of any significant change, the House overwhelmingly supports the legislation, which itself refers to consequential amendments, in the legislation of the European Community, to the treaty. I say no more than that. That is why I regret that, all too often, we return in our debates to the fundamental question as to whether membership of the European Community is a good idea.

Mr. Winnick: Crucial to the debate on this group of amendments is the question of power and whether that power will be taken away from us. The hon. Gentleman keeps on saying that that is not so, but where in the treaty is there any suggestion that power, let alone more power, will remain with this Parliament? The reason why so much criticism was levelled at the treaty both before and during the two-day debate was that power will increasingly be taken away from this Parliament and given to Europe. That is why the hon. Gentleman ought to be as honest as the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) and the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston). Although the right hon. Gentleman is a great enthusiast for the treaty, he, unlike the hon. Gentleman, admits, defends and justifies the taking away of further powers from Parliament. Why is the hon. Gentleman not willing to admit that?

Mr. Dykes: We all have our ways of explaining these things. I do not think that it is a transfer of power from one entity, a nation state, to another, Europe. It is a development of the collective power of all the sovereign


member states working together in the new concept of European union. I am grateful for the patience of the Chair—

Mr. Dalyell: rose—

Mr. Dykes: I do not intend to give way again as it would be unfair to hon. Members who are waiting to speak.
If the treaty proposed the creation of a single governmental entity or structure—a new European Government, presumably based in Brussels—to replace national Governments, that would be a different kettle of fish. That simply is not so.

Mr. Winnick: It is in the treaty.

Mr. Dykes: This is my answer. The hon. Gentleman may not like it, but he must accept it.
The enhancement of intrinsic sovereign power for all member states comes from their collective, reciprocal sharing of that power, based increasingly on majority voting and the terrifying concept of democracy, which the anti-democrats in the anti-European camp do not accept or like.
The amendments are illogical. The hon. Member for Hamilton amply explained why they do not fit and are not apposite and would have the opposite effect of that intended by the hon. Members who tabled them. That is why the House needs to settle down and accept that the vast majority of Members want the treaty to go ahead without further undue delay.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: On a point of order, Dame Janet. A few minutes ago, you said that you deprecated long interventions. As a member of the Chairmen's Panel, I fully accept that ruling, but will you accept that hon. Members who have been sitting for many hours are deeply concerned that when the Minister, who is one of the great architects of this misguided treaty and policy, sits down, the closure motion will be moved?
Hon. Members who have a valuable contribution to make to the debate have not had the opportunity to do so. The amendments allow Members on both sides of the Committee to debate the principle behind title I of the treaty and to articulate our fundamental opposition to what the House, under the guidance of the Government, is likely to be forced to do. Constitutional issues are being forced through, not in a free debate but on a three-line Whip. I ask you to say that you will allow the debate to go on after the Minister has sat down.

Several hon. Members: rose—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I shall deal with one point of order at a time.
As a member of the Chairmen's Panel, the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) will be well aware that, in Committee, the presence of a Minister at the Dispatch Box does not mean, as it would in an ordinary debate, the end of the debate. I cannot anticipate what might happen after that.

Mr. Winnick: Further to that point of order, Dame Janet. You are aware of the importance of the debate and I know that you and your colleagues in the Chair wish to defend the integrity of the House and the Committee. You

said that the fact that the Minister intends to speak again does not mean that the debate will be concluded. As many hon. Members on both sides want to speak, if a closure motion is moved, I beg you, in defending the Committee and bearing in mind how crucial the debate is, not to accept it. The decision, I understand, lies with you.
A rumour—it may be unfounded—is circulating that a closure motion will be moved shortly, certainly before 10 o'clock or just at 10 o'clock. In those circumstances, if you are in the Chair, Dame Janet, I beg you not to allow the motion to be moved, because it would make a mockery of the debate.

Several hon. Members: rose—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I shall deal with this point of order first.
I do not anticipate what may happen; I deal with what happens. I confirm that the acceptance of such a motion is entirely at my discretion.

Mr. Devlin: Further to the points of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), Dame Janet. Some hon. Members sat here yesterday evening—as you know, because you accepted two points of order from me. A number of the hon. Members who are rising in their places have already intervened in long speeches. This is an extensive debate, with many amendments, and many hon. Members are keen to make progress. I therefore hope, with all the hope in my heart, that you will accept a closure as soon as possible so that we can get on.

Mr. Rowlands: On a point of order, Dame Janet. I have sat here almost continuously from 3.30 pm to 10 pm yesterday and from 3.45 pm today until now. Like other hon. Members, I therefore feel able to make a plea to you.
You said that the fact the Minister intends to speak again does not mean that the debate will be concluded. Some of us wish to follow up aspects of the Minister's speech and put some points to him, to which we should like a reply. Will you consider not calling the Minister so that other hon. Members can make their speeches and put some specific points to the Minister that arose from his speech yesterday afternoon?

Mr. Patrick Cormack: On a point of order, Dame Janet. We spent a considerable amount of time on this debate yesterday, and at 10 pm we will have devoted a whole day to it today. I would not for a minute suggest what you should do, but I merely point out that, by then, we will have had as long as we normally have on a Second Reading debate. It must surely be obvious to everyone that certain hon. Members, far from observing the 10-minute rule, have occupied—[Interruption.] I am as aware as anyone that there is no rule, but I also know, as you do, Dame Janet, that, when colleagues are anxious to let as many hon. Members speak as possible, they practise a little self-denial.

Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Dame Janet. It is a convention of the House that speeches move from one side of the Chamber to the other. The last speaker was a Conservative Member, so it was confidently expected that a Labour Member would be called next. You called the Minister, which has given rise to a number of


fears. Indeed, the Minister had a brief conversation with the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) to indicate, from what I could tell, that he was going to get in immediately after the hon. Gentleman, and that he could curtail his remarks.
The debate is being keenly argued, and many hon. Members want to speak, which is another consideration that Chairmen of Committees bear in mind. I was told that the Minister was going to speak at 8.30 pm, the closure would be moved, and it had all been set up. If that happened—I am sure that you, Dame Janet, would not be a party to it—it would provoke great anger.
This is an important issue, and many hon. Members have a lot to say about it. Once we leave these amendments, we shall lose the opportunityy to talk about title I, which is important. This debate is vital to us all. I am not making any jokes about false points of order. If we do not have the opportunity to debate the treaty, I and many other hon. Members will be extremely angry about the Government conspiring to deny us the opportunity to speak. I hope that my hon. Friends on the Front Bench are not involved in that agreement, or consensus—because there is no consensus tonight.

The Second Deputy Chairman: I know nothing of any private conversations or conspiracies—and if I did, they would not move me one iota.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: On a point of order, Dame Janet. When the Chairman of Ways and Means, unusually, convened a meeting on Monday, he emphasised that he recognised the great importance of title I, and the fact that, as it constructed the architecture of the Bill, it gave us probably our only opportunity to view the treaty and the Bill in perspective.
Some of us could not speak on Second Reading because of the demand of so many hon. Members to speak, and the Chairman of Ways and Means suggested that we would have the opportunity to come back. There is therefore a sense of alarm that the Minister is being called at such an early stage, when so few people have spoken. One has not had an opportunity—[Interruption.] The point is that Mr. Morris showed us that he recognised that the matters before us are terribly important. [Interruption.] If any hon. Member had spoken out of order, I am sure that the occupant of the Chair would have notified the individual concerned.
There is a real sense of anxiety that we may be frustrating the purpose of the Committee stage, and our examination of the important title I. The amendment was moved by the Liberal Democrats, and it will be to the disadvantage of other hon. Members who wish to speak on the subject if we subvert the processes of proper debate.

Mr. Spearing: On a point of order, Dame Janet. The whole House recognises that if anyone claims to move the closure the occupant of the Chair has to make a decision in the circumstances at the time, and do a balancing act. May I, through this point of order, put to you two matters which I hope that you will bear in mind if that occasion should arise at any time during the debate on the amendments?
As Mr. Morris said, and as the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) reminded us, this debate is in a sense a broad conspectus on the total

meaning of the treaty as contained in title I. The breadth and gravity of the matters concerned are considerable, and they affect this country's constitution.
The Minister found some difficulty talking about those matters yesterday—

Mr. Garel-Jones: indicated dissent.

Mr. Spearing: The Minister shakes his head, but I believe that there was some difficulty in the manner in which he replied to some of his hon. Friends, and to some Opposition Members. It is not appropriate for the Minister to speak again before some of us have had an opportunity to follow up those important matters—unless there will be another opportunity for us to speak, and the debate is to continue.
I therefore hope that, if you have to make such a decision, Dame Janet, you will bear in mind that important consideration, and the fact that several of my hon. Friends and I have been in the Chamber all day yesterday and most of today, yet we have not had the opportunity even to comment on what the Minister said in his opening speech yesterday.

Mr. Butcher: On a point of order, Dame Janet. The part of the Committee discussion which deals with title I is of fundamental constitutional importance. I readily concede that some over-lengthy speeches have been made in the House in the past two days, but some hon. Members who have an immense contribution to make to the debate have waited patiently to speak. There is a clash on the exact meaning and applicability of title I—and we may never have another chance to discuss it. Six or seven major questions remain in the air, and have not been resolved.
If you were asked a question about the closure, would you think it fair to close the debate after the Minister had spoken? May I put that question to you now?

The Second Deputy Chairman: The hon. Gentleman may put the question, but I retain my discretion, and I do not answer hypothetical questions.

Mr. Ian Taylor: On a point of order, Dame Janet. Will you give guidance to the Committee? It seems to me that the debate on title I and on the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) has contained many of the same points as were raised in earlier debates on the Bill.
I am aware that we are in Committee, but many of the points raised in the debate have been raised at earlier stages, especially on Second Reading. That is important, because the Bill has already been discussed by the House for longer than all the stages of the Single European Act. There can be no question of there not having been a proper debate. If certain of my hon. Friends decided to make very long speeches covering all the points, naturally it will not be possible for other hon. Members to contribute if we are to make progress.
I hope that we can make progress on the Bill, Dame Janet. Many of us would like to contribute to debates on amendments on the Order Paper, which will be discussed in later groups. This debate on the opening group has already been very long.

Mr. George Robertson: On a point of order, Dame Janet. Unfortunately, you are embroiled in dealing with hypothetical situations, but may I offer you the information that it is my view, and that of my hon.


Friends, that the Opposition have not had an adequate opportunity to air our variety of views on the fundamental part of the debate which 'is now taking place? Lest there be confusion in anyone's mind, let me tell the House what I told the Minister earlier this evening: if the Government Whips choose to move the closure at this stage, we shall oppose it.

Mr. Shore: The House has entirely legitimate anxieties about the Minister's intentions. Is it not possible for the Minister himself to rise on a point of order and allay those anxieties by assuring us that he has no intention of moving the closure—[HON. MEMBERS: "Or anyone else."]—yes, or anyone else on the Government Front Bench.

The Second Deputy Chairman: That is, of course, not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Garel-Jones: rose—

Mr. Bill Walker: rose—

Hon. Members: Sit down.

Mr. Garel-Jones: Further to that point of order, Dame Janet. I tell the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) that I have no notion what the intention of the business managers may be—

Mr. Winnick: Why don't you ask them?

Mr. Denzil Davies: On a point of order, Dame Janet.

Several hon. Members: rose—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I am taking a point of order from Mr. Davies. It is a point of order, I take it?

Mr. Davies: Yes, Dame Janet. Like many of m y hon. Friends, I have sat here for almost two days. This debate is not the debate we had on Second Reading. We are discussing some difficult legal matters, including the justiciability of title I. The Minister of State made some important points, although he has not clarified many of the matters which we wish to raise. If the debate is closed after his second intervention, we will have no further opportunity to debate those matters.

9 pm

Mr. Bill Walker: On a point of order, Dame Janet. We have had a two-day debate, and some of us have sat through the whole two days. You will notice that I represent one of the Scottish constituencies. Some aspects of title I must be addressed, as they affect the unitary Parliament and the Union. It is necessary for me to raise matters with the Minister and to get some sort of answer. I fail to see how I can do that if the Minister addresses the Committee now. It will give the Government no opportunity to answer the matters that I wish to put to the Minister. That would certainly send the wrong message to Scotland and to the rest of the country.

Mr. Ron Leighton: On a point of order, Dame Janet. Can you explain why the Minister looks as if he is about to be called to speak again when other hon. Members have not spoken once, although they have sat through the whole debate? Some of us want to hear those other Members. Why have we broken the rule that we call hon. Members alternately from both sides of

the Chamber? Will two Conservative Members be called consecutively? Are you aware that our fears have been strengthened as a result of the non-assurance and the weasel words of the Minister?

The Second Deputy Chairman: The right hon. Member I was about to call is the Minister in charge of the Bill.

Mr. Budgen: On a point of order, Dame Janet. May I express my extreme distaste for the way in which the Minister of State dealt with the Committee a moment ago? He had an opportunity to calm the Committee and to offer a reasonably conciliatory gesture. However, he tried by a clever sleight of tongue to give an ambivalent answer to you, simply to irritate the Committee.
With the exception of the Government, the Committee wishes the debate to continue. If we are to have satisfactory discussions, we must create some trust between the Minister who is dealing with the matter and the rest of the Committee. The Minister's ambivalent—I even go so far as to say impertinent—remark does nothing but create contempt.

The Second Deputy Chairman: The Committee will appreciate that I am not responsible for the answers given by a Minister or, indeed, by any other hon. Member.

Mr. Barnes: On a point of order, Dame Janet. We are in some difficulty because you have called the Minister to speak, and the points of order are an attempt to make you change your mind. I appreciate that you have already made your decision. In those circumstances, would it not be helpful if the Minister announced that he did not wish to speak at this stage, but that he would be willing to speak later? The Minister's remark was not helpful to the Committee. He can now rise on a point of order and assist us all.

Mrs. Gorman: On a point of order, Dame Janet, I appeal to your sense of fairness in the matter. Many of us on the Back Benches, who, because we are not Privy Councillors and have not held offices that would enable us to attract the attention of the Chair in such a debate, have tried in vain many times to contribute to debates on Europe. That means that we sit for hours during such debates. On Second Reading, I tried to speak on the subject—[Interruption.]

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I have great difficulty in hearing, due to the sedentary comments of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie). That is not acceptable to me.

Mrs. Currie: On a point of order, Dame Janet. I apologise; I merely wished to make the point that what was said by the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) was not a point of order; it was a load of humbug—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I shall be the judge of what is a point of order; it is not for the hon. Lady to do so. Has the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) finished her point of order?

Mrs. Gorman: The hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) has spent more time out of the Chamber in the past two days than I have.

The Second Deputy Chairman: That is not a point of order. I must move on to another point of order.

Mr. Lewis: On a point of order, Dame Janet. The hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) and others have referred to the fact that we are in Committee. Is it not the case that, in Committee, extra time should be given to allow hon. Members on both sides to make their contributions?

Mr. Christopher Gill: On a point of order, Dame Janet. I am sure you recognise that several hon. Members have sat through the whole two-day debate and have not been called. Although there is debate and argument about whether title I should be included in the Bill, the fact of the matter is that title I is an integral part of the treaty. Once the treaty is ratified, it will be interpreted as though title I stood part of it. Therefore, it is extremely important for the Committee to be given a full opportunity to debate the matter almost exhaustively, because it is of such fundamental constitutional importance.

Mr. Livingstone: On a point of order, Dame Janet. Can you rule that it is completely out of order for hon. Members who have been called and made their speeches to try to curtail the debate? We have a noble tradition in the Labour movement that such action is completely out of order and insulting to everyone else.

The Second Deputy Chairman: I am not aware of any such rule in the House of Commons.

Rev. Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Dame Janet. May I draw your attention to the fact that the other parts of the United Kingdom have a right to be heard in the debate on this constitutional matter? I am the only Northern Ireland Member who has attended the Committee both days. I believe that I have a duty to the people who sent me here and a duty to the overwhelming majority of voters of Northern Ireland who, on three occasions, have endorsed my view of the European Economic Community. I believe that I should have an opportunity to put my view.
I have not spoken at length in this Committee. In the European Parliament, I spoke many times for many hours. In this Committee, I have always respected the Chair, and I have always done right by the Chair. I should feel very angry tonight if not one speaker from Northern Ireland was allowed to put his view.
I have heard something of the plottings, and I have overheard remarks. It was disgraceful of the Minister to act as he did tonight. This is a constitutional issue. It will not affect us for 10 minutes or for an hour: it will affect our future, our families, our children and our grandchildren, and we have a right to be heard. The Bill was drafted in such a way as to gag us. What we could have said in order we shall not now be allowed to say.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: On a point of order, Dame Janet. I appeal to you as someone who safeguards the interest of Back-Bench Members. May I remind you that the Minister said during these points of order that he had no knowledge whatever of what the business managers of the House intended? May I ask whether I and other long-serving Members are expected to believe that?

The Second Deputy Chairman: As we are all supposedly honourable Members—I trust that we are—we must accept what another hon. Member has said.

Mr. Budgen: Further to that point of order, Dame Janet. I dare say that there are right hon. and hon. Members who are generous enough to believe the Minister

of State when he says that he does not know what the business managers intend to do. As I speak, he has an opportunity to ask the Whips what their intentions are. If he cannot move the two feet necessary to get to the Whip, I am sure that the Whip is sufficiently athletic to move that two feet himself. The Minister might then be able to give the Committee some information. I repeat: the Minister's earlier reply was offensive to the Committee.

Mr. Cash: Further to that point of order, Dame Janet. Is it in order for the Minister to say that he has had no contact with the Whips on this question when there are those in the Committee who have some access to other information? Would it be possible for us to be able to put it to you that the Minister may have information which he is not disclosing to the Committee about what is going on this evening in relation to the proceedings?

The Second Deputy Chairman: The duties of the Chair are onerous enough, without checking every rumour or suggestion. The Chair cannot be involved in that.

Mr. Leighton: Further to that point of order, Dame Janet. May I suggest that you adjourn the Committee for two minutes to allow the Minister to find out what the Whips intend to do?

Mr. Budgen: Further to that point of order, Dame Janet. May I respectfully suggest that the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) has made an extremely sensible and helpful suggestion? The Committee is, in general, very fond of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State. However, he has offended the Committee tonight. This is an opportunity for him to speak to the Chief Whip. It is sensible to suggest that the Committee might rise for a few minutes to enable my right hon. Friend the Minister to discuss the matter in a calm and civilised way.

Mr. Garel-Jones: Further to that point of order, Dame Janet. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) and I have both done time in the Whips Office. It will not come as a surprise to him to be told that it is not infrequent in these matters that sometimes the last person the usual channels choose—[Interruption.]

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. As I understand it, the Minister seeks to answer a point of order. We do not have interventions on points of order.

Mr. Garel-Jones: It is of course the case, as my hon. Friend was saying, that I have attempted in the course of the afternoon to ascertain what are the plans for the future, and I assure hon. Members that my whole purpose in seeking to intervene when I did was to hope that other hon. Members might be able to continue to speak after I had sat down.

Notice being taken that strangers were present, The Second Deputy Chairman, pursuant to Standing Order No. 143 (Withdrawal of strangers from the House), put forthwith the Question, That strangers do withdraw:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 9, Noes 416.

Division No. 94]
9.10 pm


AYES


Budgen, Nicholas
Paisley, Rev Ian


Cash, William
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Etherington, Bill
Sweeney, Walter






Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
Mr. Ronnie Campbell and Mr. Harry Barnes.


Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Cohen, Harry


Adams, Mrs Irene
Colvin, Michael


Adley, Robert
Congdon, David


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Connarty, Michael


Aitken, Jonathan
Conway, Derek


Alexander, Richard
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Alton, David
Cormack, Patrick


Amess, David
Couchman, James


Ancram, Michael
Cousins, Jim


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Cryer, Bob


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Ashby, David
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Aspinwall, Jack
Dafis, Cynog


Atkins, Robert
Dalyell, Tam


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Darling, Alistair


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Davidson, Ian


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Baldry, Tony
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Day, Stephen


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Barron, Kevin
Devlin, Tim


Bates, Michael
Dicks, Terry


Batiste, Spencer
Dixon, Don


Battle, John
Donohoe, Brian H.


Bayley, Hugh
Dorrell, Stephen


Beckett, Margaret
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Beggs, Roy
Dover, Den


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Duncan, Alan


Belling ham, Henry
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Bennett, Andrew F.
Dunn, Bob


Beresford, Sir Paul
Durant, Sir Anthony


Booth, Hartley
Dykes, Hugh


Bottom ley, Peter (Eltham)
Eastham, Ken


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Elletson, Harold


Bowden, Andrew
Emery, Sir Peter


Bowis, John
Enright, Derek


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Bradley, Keith
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Brandreth, Gyles
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Brazier, Julian
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Bright, Graham
Evennett, David


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Faber, David


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Fabricant, Michael


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Fatchett, Derek


Burden, Richard
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Burns, Simon
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Burt, Alistair
Fishburn, Dudley


Butler, Peter
Forman, Nigel


Butterfill, John
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Caborn, Richard
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)


Callaghan, Jim
Forth, Eric


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)


Cann, Jamie
Foster, Don (Bath)


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Foulkes, George


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norrnan


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Carrington, Matthew
Freeman, Roger


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
French, Douglas


Chaplin, Mrs Judith
Gale, Roger


Chapman, Sydney
Gallie, Phil


Chisholm, Malcolm
Gapes, Mike


Clapham, Michael
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Clappison, James
Garnier, Edward


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Gillan, Cheryl


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Clelland, David
Godsiff, Roger


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Golding, Mrs Llin


Coe, Sebastian
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Coffey, Ann
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles





Gordon, Mildred
Leighton, Ron


Gorst, John
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Graham, Thomas
Lewis, Terry


Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)
Lidington, David


Greenway, Harry (Eating N)
Lightbown, David


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Livingstone, Ken


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Grocort, Bruce
Llwyd, Elfyn


Gunnell, John
Loyden, Eddie


Hague, William
Luff, Peter


Hain, Peter
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Hall, Mike
Lynne, Ms Liz


Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)
McAllion, John


Hanley, Jeremy
McAvoy, Thomas


Hannam, Sir John
McCartney, Ian


Hanson, David
Macdonald, Calum


Hardy, Peter
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Hargreaves, Andrew
MacKay, Andrew


Harris, David
Mackinlay, Andrew


Harvey, Nick
Maclean, David


Haselhurst, Alan
McLeish, Henry


Hawkins, Nick
Maclennan, Robert


Hayes, Jerry
McLoughlin, Patrick


Heald, Oliver
McMaster, Gordon


Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward
McNamara, Kevin


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Madden, Max


Hendry, Charles
Madel, David


Heppell, John
Mahon, Alice


Hicks, Robert
Maitland, Lady Olga


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Major, Rt Hon John


Hinchliffe, David
Malone, Gerald


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Mans, Keith


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Marland, Paul


Home Robertson, John
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Hoon, Geoffrey
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Horam, John
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Hordern, Sir Peter
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Martlew, Eric


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Maxton, John


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Meale, Alan


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Merchant, Piers


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Michael, Alun


Hunter, Andrew
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Hutton, John
Milburn, Alan


Ingram, Adam
Miller, Andrew


Jack, Michael
Milligan, Stephen


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Mills, Iain


Janner, Greville
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Jenkin, Bernard
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Monro, Sir Hector


Johnston, Sir Russell
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Morley, Elliot


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)


Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Moss, Malcolm


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Mudie, George


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Mullin, Chris


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Needham, Richard


Jowell, Tessa
Nelson, Anthony


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Neubert, Sir Michael


Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Nicholls, Patrick


Key, Robert
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Kilfoyle, Peter
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Norris, Steve


Kirkhope, Timothy
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Kirkwood, Archy
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
O'Hara, Edward


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Olner, William


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
O'Neill, Martin


Knox, David
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Ottaway, Richard


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Page, Richard


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Paice, James


Legg, Barry
Parry, Robert


Leigh, Edward
Patten, Rt Hon John






Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Pawsey, James
Steen, Anthony


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Steinberg, Gerry


Pendry, Tom
Stephen, Michael


Pickles, Eric
Stern, Michael


Pickthall, Colin
Stewart, Allan


Pike, Peter L.
Streeter, Gary


Pope, Greg
Sumberg, David


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Sykes, John


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Prescott, John
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Primarolo, Dawn
Thomason, Roy


Purchase, Ken
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Randall, Stuart
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Redwood, John
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Richards, Rod
Thurnham, Peter


Riddick, Graham
Tipping, Paddy


Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Robathan, Andrew
Tracey, Richard


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Tredinnick, David


Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Trend, Michael


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Trimble, David


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Trotter, Neville


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Turner, Dennis


Rogers, Allan
Tyler, Paul


Rooker, Jeff
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Rooney, Terry
Wallace, James


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Waller, Gary


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Walley, Joan


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Ward, John


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Sackville, Tom
Wareing, Robert N


Sainsbury. Rt Hon Tim
Waterson, Nigel


Shaw, David (Dover)
Watson, Mike


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Watts, John


Sheerman, Barry
Wells, Bowen


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Welsh, Andrew


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wheeler, Sir John


Shersby, Michael
Whitney, Ray


Sims, Roger
Whittingdale, John


Skinner, Dennis
Widdecombe, Ann


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Wiggin, Jerry


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Wigley, Dafydd


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Willetts, David


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Wilshire, David


Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Wise, Audrey


Soames, Nicholas
Wolfson, Mark


Spearing, Nigel
Wood, Timothy


Spencer, Sir Derek
Wright, Dr Tony


Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Yeo, Tim


Spink, Dr Robert
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Spring, Richard



Sproat, Iain
Tellers for the Noes:


Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)
Mr. James Arbuthnot and


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Mr. Tim Boswell.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Budgen: On a point of order, Dame Janet. May I make a suggestion? There seems to have been a slight misunderstanding between the Committee and the Minister of State. I am pleased that he has had the opportunity to have a discussion, perhaps with the Patronage Secretary, but the Patronage Secretary has a rather different and more partisan role than that of the Leader of the House. If the Leader of the House were to explain how he reconciled the rights of Back-Bench Members with the Government's wish to get on with the business, he might explain what the Government's plans are for the rest of this evening. I dare say that he would do that in a more conciliatory way than the Minister of State would.

The Second Deputy Chairman: It is not for the Chair to ask or command any hon. Member to come to the Committee. No doubt the point will have been heard by Front-Bench Members. I call Mr. Garel-Jones.

Mr. Garel-Jones: I am grateful to you, Dame Janet, for recognising me.
Over the past two days, several hon. Members have made the point that the Committee owes a debt to the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) for moving his amendment which has enabled us to discuss the broad structure of the treaty. The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) was quite correct to say that the amendment goes to the heart of our subsequent debates in Committee.
We have spent some time discussing amendment No. 93, which proposes to include title I in the scope of the Bill. The plain fact is, however, as I stated at the start of the debate, that, for the purposes of our domestic legislation, those parts of title I which need to come within the scope of the Bill are already included. There is every value in a serious debate on the content of title I of the treaty. As I have said, we are indebted to the hon. Gentleman for moving the amendment. But, as the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) made clear, there is no need in our domestic legislation to accept the amendment as proposed.
The Committee should recall—your predecessors in the Chair, Dame Janet, have reminded the Committee of this fact on several occasions—that we are not discussing ratification of the treaty.

Sir Russell Johnston: Is the essence of the Minister of State's argument against our amendment that it is not necessary and that it would not make any difference? That has not been clear to me throughout our proceedings.

Mr. Garel-Jones: No. There are several arguments against the hon. Gentleman's amendment, not least of which are those that were made by the hon. Member for Hamilton. In respect of our domestic legislation, it is completely otiose and it would create legal anomalies.
Another aspect of the hon. Gentleman's amendment is worth considering, particularly by my hon. Friends. In one sense, it begins to chip away at—to collapse—the pillared intergovernmental structure of the union. To that extent, I can see why the hon. Gentleman tabled his amendment. He and his hon. Friends support a single structured Europe. Most of my hon. Friends and I do not support the Liberal Democrats' view of Europe. To that extent, I see what the amendment is aiming at. Even if one were a federalist, as the hon. Gentleman is, there are other legal arguments as to why his amendment should not be accepted.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Garel-Jones: I should like to make more progress and then I will give way. Points have been raised during the debate which I should like to respond to; then I will give way.

Sir Russell Johnston: rose—

Mr. Garel-Jones: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, whose amendment we are debating.

Sir Russell Johnston: The Minister commends me to support my amendment because it is in the logic of my


party's position. I understand that. He then says that it may make a mess of legal matters, but throughout the debate no one has explained that. If he manages to do so, I will take great note of it.

Mr. Garel-Jones: I shall certainly do that.
As I said, the Chair has reminded the Committee on several occasions that we are not discussing ratification of the treaty. We are engaged in detailed examination of a piece of domestic legislation required to incorporate into the framework of United Kingdom law those provisions of the treaty which need to be so incorporated. That means the provisions of titles II, III and IV and other provisions so far as they relate to those titles. That point was made effectively by the hon. Member for Hamilton in explaining to the Committee why the official Opposition would not be supporting the hon. Gentleman's amendment.
The hon. Gentleman also noted that legislation in other countries covered the whole treaty and suggested that ours should do likewise. The constitutional requirements in Britain are the ones which I have addressed. Although he would wish it not to be the case, I am glad that we do not yet have harmonisation of constitutional practice throughout Europe. He might wish that but that wish is not shared by my right hon. and hon. Friends, nor, I believe, by—

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Garel-Jones: Not yet; I want to make a little more progress and then I will give way.
The process of ratification, as distinct from the Bill, does not always require legislation to be enacted. Some important treaties over the years did not require legislation before ratification. I sought to make that point earlier. For example, the treaties establishing NATO and the Western European Union, and the recent "two plus four" treaty on the reunification of Germany, did not require legislation. In such cases the House was given the opportunity to examine the treaty which had been signed, subject to ratification, before it was ratified, in accordance with the Ponsonby procedures.
When domestic legislation is required, as is the case here, prior to ratification, the legislative process subsumes that practice but does not replace it. That has been the practice followed for nearly 70 years. The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber may not agree with that procedure and he may wish to see the day when the Community can impose different procedures upon us, but such procedures are not followed in this Parliament. Provisions which are not necessary would create confusion in our domestic legislation. The legislation already includes in its scope all that it needs to include in order that we can honour our obligations under the treaty.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Garel-Jones: I want to address points made by some of my hon. Friends. Then I shall sit down so that other hon. Members may take part in the debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher), who is not in his place but who has attended the debate assiduously, made the point that the common provisions of title I do not in themselves create new rights or obligations in Community law. I sought to make that point in response to interventions during my opening remarks. They are intended as an introduction to the main body of the treaty and, as such, refer in places to

activities outlined in the detail later. For example, article E refers to the Community institutions and to how they will exercise their powers. Nothing in the common provisions is inconsistent with the substantive articles later in the treaty.
Although Community laws cannot be adopted under the common provisions, they can be taken into account by the European Court of Justice by reflecting the intentions of the drafters.

Mr. Denzil Davies: The Minister has explained that parts of the first title will appear in the other titles and so the Bill will give them effect in domestic law. He then said that if those parts of title I which do not need to be given effect in domestic law were included in the Bill, it would chip away at the intergovernmental nature of those parts. Could he explain that? If they do not have to be incorporated into domestic law, how on earth can they chip away at anything?

Mr. Garel-Jones: Because if the Committee were to support the amendment, it would make domestic law in Britain more federal and centralising, placing it ahead of the Maastricht treaty. That is why I hope that on reflection he will think that my other arguments outweigh that. That may be why he thinks that he would be wise to support his amendment, but I would be surprised if he or any of my hon. Friends were prepared to countenance putting provisions in United Kingdom domestic legislation that would make it more federalist and centralist than the Maastricht treaty.

Mr. Enright: May we put it another way? Is it not the case that, if the amendment were included in our law, the intergovernmental conference would be more responsible to this body than it will be, and that it would also be more responsible to the European Parliament?

Mr. Garel-Jones: I do not think that that would be the case. As the hon. Member for Hamilton said, there could be a danger that we were beginning a process whereby any action taken intergovernmentally by Ministers of the Crown that would provoke a change in the laws of the United Kingdom would prompt the introduction of a Bill to the House in the normal way. I am not sure what would be the effect were we to introduce that centralising measure into the body of the treaty, and I am not sure that it would produce the effects that the hon. Member mentions.
Another issue has been raised by many of my hon. and right hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) in an intervention, when he inadvertently misread the word "means" as "money". I accept that it was an inadvertence on his part, and we both laughed about it. My 'hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) also mentioned it. Article F, paragraph 3, states:
The Union shall provide itself with the means necessary to attain its objectives and carry through its policies.
My hon. Friend is exercised about that paragraph because of the word "means", and he and a number of other hon. Members argue that that means, with the funds necessary, and that a money resolution should therefore be attached to the Bill.
The union has no financial resources of its own. The commitment reflected in article F dates back to the Rome European Council and is a reference to means, in the broad sense of the word, available to the Community, through its Community and intergovernmental arms, to


carry out the purposes laid down. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills that the provision does not refer to financial means. I can well understand why hon. Members might have thought it did, because we have Mr. Morris, who is the "Chairman of Ways and Means."
Some of my hon. Friends have made considerable jest about the occasional use of foreign words or phrases in the treaty. The phrase "acquis communautaire" has provided the Committee with much amusement. One must consider the fact that the treaty must be drafted in nine different languages by a profession called jurist-linguists. The French version of the treaty uses the word "moyens", which means "means" in the broadest sense rather than the revenue-raising sense.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: I have not yet had an opportunity to develop an argument, which is part of the frustration of this process. I must deal with points on which, so far, I have not succeeded in catching the Chairman's eye to put forward an argument on the basis of what I understood was an amendment which should be thoroughly discussed. My right hon. Friend's rising at this stage and seeking to answer questions that have not been developed or put is an unfair and short-cut way to proceed, because he will not deal with all the points that I hoped to make.

Mr. Garel-Jones: My hon. Friend did not take advantage of catching your eye, Mr. Morris, to ask me a question, so there is little that I can say in response.
I listened with care—sometimes with interest and amusement—to the lengthy speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash), who has tabled a series of amendments that are grouped with amendment No. 93. I would describe all those amendments as wrecking amendments; their purpose is to wreck the Bill.
I was struck less by the content of my hon. Friend's speech than by two interventions in it. The first was by my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) and the second was by the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone). My hon. Friend the Member for Billericay believed that the Maastricht treaty, and therefore the Bill, was a communist plot, whereas the hon. Member for Brent, East believed that it was a capitalist plot. Those two interventions seemed to sum up the comment by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), who said in his speech that he did not believe in the conspiracy theory. I thought that he invented it.

Mrs. Gorman: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Garel-Jones: No. I wish to conclude now.
A number of my hon. Friends believe that there is a conspiracy behind the treaty. There is no such conspiracy, and on that basis, when a Division is called, I invite hon. Members on both sides of the House to oppose the amendment.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 296, Noes 164.

Division No. 95]
[9.42 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Duncan, Alan


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Durant, Sir Anthony


Aitken, Jonathan
Dykes, Hugh


Alexander, Richard
Eggar, Tim


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Elletson, Harold


Alton, David
Emery, Sir Peter


Amess, David
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Ancram, Michael
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Arbuthnot, James
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Evennett, David


Ashby, David
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Faber, David


Aspinwall, Jack
Fabricant, Michael


Atkins, Robert
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Fishburn, Dudley


Baldry, Tony
Forman, Nigel


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Forth, Eric


Bates, Michael
Foster, Don (Bath)


Batiste, Spencer
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Bellingham, Henry
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Freeman, Roger


Booth, Hartley
French, Douglas


Boswell, Tim
Gale, Roger


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Gallie, Phil


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Bowden, Andrew
Garnier, Edward


Bowis, John
Gillan, Cheryl


Brandreth, Gyles
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Brazier, Julian
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bright, Graham
Gorst, John


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Grylls, Sir Michael


Burns, Simon
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Burt, Alistair
Hague, William


Butler, Peter
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)


Butterfill, John
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hanley, Jeremy


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Hannam, Sir John


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hargreaves, Andrew


Carrington, Matthew
Harris, David


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Harvey, Nick


Chaplin, Mrs Judith
Haselhurst, Alan


Chapman, Sydney
Hawkins, Nick


Churchill, Mr
Hayes, Jerry


Clappison, James
Heald, Oliver


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Coe, Sebastian
Hendry, Charles


Colvin, Michael
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Congdon, David
Hicks, Robert


Conway, Derek
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Home Robertson, John


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Horam, John


Cormack, Patrick
Hordern, Sir Peter


Couchman, James
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Dafis, Cynog
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Dalyell, Tam
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Hunter, Andrew


Day, Stephen
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Jack, Michael


Devlin, Tim
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Dicks, Terry
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Dorrell, Stephen
Johnston, Sir Russell


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Dover, Den
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)






Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Robathan, Andrew


Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Key, Robert
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Knox, David
Sackville, Tom


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Leigh, Edward
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lidington, David
Shersby, Michael


Lightbown, David
Sims, Roger


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Llwyd, Elfyn
Soames, Nicholas


Luff, Peter
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Lynne, Ms Liz
Spink, Dr Robert


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Spring, Richard


MacKay, Andrew
Sproat, Iain


Maclean, David
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Maclennan, Robert
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


McLoughlin, Patrick
Steen, Anthony


Madel, David
Stephen, Michael


Maitland, Lady Olga
Stern, Michael


Major, Rt Hon John
Stewart, Allan


Malone, Gerald
Streeter, Gary


Mans, Keith
Sumberg, David


Marland, Paul
Sykes, John


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Mates, Michael
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Thomason, Roy


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Merchant, Piers
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Thurnham, Peter


Milligan, Stephen
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Mills, Iain
Tracey, Richard


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Tredinnick, David


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Trend, Michael


Monro, Sir Hector
Trotter, Neville


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Twinn, Dr Ian


Moss, Malcolm
Tyler, Paul


Needham, Richard
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Nelson, Anthony
Wallace, James


Neubert, Sir Michael
Ward, John


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Nicholls, Patrick
Waterson, Nigel


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Watts, John


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Wells, Bowen


Norris, Steve
Welsh, Andrew


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Wheeler, Sir John


Oppenheim, Phillip
Whitney, Ray


Ottaway, Richard
Widdecombe, Ann


Page, Richard
Wiggin, Jerry


Paice, James
Wigley, Dafydd


Patten, Rt Hon John
Willerts, David


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Wilshire, David


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Wolfson, Mark


Pickles, Eric
Wood, Timothy


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Yeo, Tim


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Randall, Stuart



Redwood, John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Richards, Rod
Mr. Archy Kirkwood and Mr. Simon Hughes.


Riddick, Graham





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Barron, Kevin


Adams, Mrs Irene
Battle, John


Ainger, Nick
Bayley, Hugh


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Beckett, Margaret


Barnes, Harry
Beggs, Roy





Benn, Rt Hon Tony
McAllion, John


Bennett, Andrew F.
McCartney, Ian


Body, Sir Richard
Macdonald, Calum


Bradley, Keith
Mackinlay, Andrew


Budgen, Nicholas
McLeish, Henry


Burden, Richard
McNamara, Kevin


Butcher, John
Madden, Max


Callaghan, Jim
Mahon, Alice


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Martlew, Eric


Cann, Jamie
Maxton, John


Chisholm, Malcolm
Meale, Alan


Clapham, Michael
Michael, Alun


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Clelland, David
Milburn, Alan


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Miller, Andrew


Coffey, Ann
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Cohen, Harry
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Connarty, Michael
Morley, Elliot


Cousins, Jim
Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)


Cryer, Bob
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Mudie, George


Cunningham, Dr John (C'p'l'nd)
Mullin, Chris


Darling, Alistair
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Davidson, Ian
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
O'Hara, Edward


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Olner, William


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Paisley, Rev Ian


Dixon, Don
Parry, Robert


Donohoe, Brian H.
Pendry, Tom


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Pickthall, Colin


Eastham, Ken
Pike, Peter L.


Enright, Derek
Pope, Greg


Etherington, Bill
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Fatchett, Derek
Prescott, John


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Primarolo, Dawn


Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)
Purchase, Ken


Foulkes, George
Raynsford, Nick


Fyfe, Maria
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Gapes, Mike
Rogers, Allan


George, Bruce
Rooney, Terry


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Godsiff, Roger
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Rowlands, Ted


Gordon, Mildred
Sheerman, Barry


Graham, Thomas
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Grocott, Bruce
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Gunnell, John
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Hain, Peter
Skinner, Dennis


Hall, Mike
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Hanson, David
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Hardy, Peter
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Heppell, John
Spearing, Nigel


Hinchliffe, David
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Steinberg, Gerry


Hoon, Geoffrey
Stott, Roger


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Hoyle, Doug
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Tipping, Paddy


Hutton, John
Trimble, David


Ingram, Adam
Turner, Dennis


Jamieson, David
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Janner, Greville
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Warded, Gareth (Gower)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Wareing, Robert N


Jowell, Tessa
Watson, Mike


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Khabra, Piara S.
Winnick, David


Kilfoyle, Peter
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Leighton, Ron
Wise, Audrey


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Wright, Dr Tony


Lewis, Terry



Livingstone, Ken
Tellers for the Noes:


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Mr. Gordon McMaster and Mr. Thomas McAvoy.


Loyden, Eddie

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 28, Noes 392.

Division No. 96]
[9.56 pm


AYES


Alton, David
Lynne, Ms Liz


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Maclennan, Robert


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Body, Sir Richard
Salmond, Alex


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Dafis, Cynog
Tyler, Paul


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Wallace, James


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Welsh, Andrew


Foster, Don (Bath)
Wigley, Dafydd


Johnston, Sir Russell
Wilkinson, John


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)



Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Kennedy, Charles (Ross.C&S)
Mr. Archy Kirkwood and Mr. Simon Hughes.


Llwyd, Elfyn





NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene
Chaplin, Mrs Judith


Adley, Robert
Chapman, Sydney


Ainger, Nick
Chisholm, Malcolm


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Churchill, Mr


Aitken, Jonathan
Clapham, Michael


Alexander, Richard
Clappison, James


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Amess, David
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)


Ancram, Michael
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Arbuthnot, James
Coe, Sebastian


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Cohen, Harry


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Colvin, Michael


Ashby, David
Congdon, David


Aspinwall, Jack
Connarty, Michael


Atkins, Robert
Conway, Derek


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Baldry, Tony
Cormack, Patrick


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Couchman, James


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Cousins, Jim


Barnes, Harry
Cryer, Bob


Barron, Kevin
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Bates, Michael
Cunningham, Dr John (C'p'l'nd)


Batiste, Spencer
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Battle, John
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Beckett, Margaret
Dalyell, Tam


Bellingham, Henry
Darling, Alistair


Beresford, Sir Paul
Davidson, Ian


Booth, Hartley
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)


Bowden, Andrew
Day, Stephen


Bowis, John
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Bradley, Keith
Devlin, Tim


Brandreth, Gyles
Dicks, Terry


Brazier, Julian
Dixon, Don


Bright, Graham
Donohoe, Brian H.


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Dorrell, Stephen


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Dover, Den


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Duncan, Alan


Burns, Simon
Dunn, Bob


Burt, Alistair
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Butler, Peter
Durant, Sir Anthony


Butterfill, John
Dykes, Hugh


Callaghan, Jim
Eastham, Ken


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Eggar, Tim


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Elletson, Harold


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Emery, Sir Peter


Cann, Jamie
Enright, Derek


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Etherington, Bill


Carrington, Matthew
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Evans, John (St Helens N)





Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Hutton, John


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Ingram, Adam


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Jack, Michael


Evennett, David
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Faber, David
Jamieson, David


Fabricant, Michael
Janner, Greville


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Jenkin, Bernard


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Fishburn, Dudley
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Forman, Nigel
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Forth, Eric
Keen, Alan


Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Key, Robert


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Khabra, Piara S.


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Kilfoyle, Peter


Freeman, Roger
King, Rt Hon Tom


French, Douglas
Kirkhope, Timothy


Fyfe, Maria
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Gale, Roger
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Gallie, Phil
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Gapes, Mike
Knox, David


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Garnier, Edward
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


George, Bruce
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Gillan, Cheryl
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Leigh, Edward


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Gordon, Mildred
Lewis, Terry


Gorst, John
Lidington, David


Graham, Thomas
Lightbown, David


Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Livingstone, Ken


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Grocott, Bruce
Loyden, Eddie


Grylls, Sir Michael
Luff, Peter


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Gunnell, John
McAvoy, Thomas


Hague, William
McCartney, Ian


Hain, Peter
Macdonald, Calum


Hall, Mike
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)
MacKay, Andrew


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Mackinlay, Andrew


Hampson, Dr Keith
Maclean, David


Hanley, Jeremy
McLoughlin, Patrick


Hannam, Sir John
McMaster, Gordon


Hanson, David
McNamara, Kevin


Hardy, Peter
Madden, Max


Hargreaves, Andrew
Madel, David


Harris, David
Maitland, Lady Olga


Haselhurst, Alan
Major, Rt Hon John


Hawkins, Nick
Malone, Gerald


Hayes, Jerry
Mans, Keith


Heald, Oliver
Marland, Paul


Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Hendry, Charles
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Heppell, John
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Martlew, Eric


Hicks, Robert
Mates, Michael


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Hinchliffe, David
Maxton, John


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Meale, Alan


Home Robertson, John
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Hoon, Geoffrey
Merchant, Piers


Horam, John
Michael, Alun


Hordern, Sir Peter
Milburn, Alan


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Miller, Andrew


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Milligan, Stephen


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Mills, Iain


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hoyle, Doug
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Monro, Sir Hector


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hunter, Andrew
Morley, Elliot


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)






Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Moss, Malcolm
Sackville, Tom


Mudie, George
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Mullin, Chris
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Needham, Richard
Shaw, David (Dover)


Nelson, Anthony
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Neubert, Sir Michael
Sheerman, Barry


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Nicholls, Patrick
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Shersby, Michael


Norris, Steve
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)
Sims, Roger


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Skinner, Dennis


O'Hara, Edward
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Olner, William
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Ottaway, Richard
Soames, Nicholas


Page, Richard
Spearing, Nigel


Paice, James
Spencer, Sir Derek


Parry, Robert
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Patten, Rt Hon John
Spink, Dr Robert


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Spring, Richard


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Sproat, Iain


Pickles, Eric
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Pickthall, Colin
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Pike, Peter L.
Steen, Anthony


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Steinberg, Gerry


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Stephen, Michael


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Stern, Michael


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Stewart, Allan


Randall, Stuart
Stott, Roger


Raynsford, Nick
Streeter, Gary


Redwood, John
Sumberg, David


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Sykes, John


Richards, Rod
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Riddick, Graham
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Robathan, Andrew
Thomason, Roy


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Thurnham, Peter


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Tipping, Paddy


Rogers, Allan
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Rooney, Terry
Tracey, Richard


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Tredinnick, David


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Trend, Michael


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Trotter, Neville





Twinn, Dr Ian
Widdecombe, Ann


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Wiggin, Jerry


Waldegrave, Rt Hon William
Willetts, David


Waller, Gary
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Ward, John
Wilshire, David


Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Winnick, David


Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Wise, Audrey


Wareing, Robert N
Wolfson, Mark


Waterson, Nigel
Wright, Dr Tony


Watson, Mike
Yeo, Tim


Watts, John
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Wells, Bowen



Wheeler, Sir John
Tellers for the Noes:


Whitney, Ray
Mr. Tim Boswell and Mr. Timothy Wood.


Whittingdale, John

Question accordingly negatived.

It being alter Ten o'clock THE CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress; to sit again tomorrow.

Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. During the Committee stage of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill, the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the right hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), said that he intended to make his remarks short because he wanted to leave time for other hon. Members to speak on the amendments—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. The hon. Member may have noticed that I have now assumed my role of deputising for Madam Speaker. I am no longer the Chairman, and Madam Speaker is not party to what has taken place in Committee, so there can be no discussion now of what happened then.

PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER FOR ADMINISTRATION

Ordered,
That Mr. Ronnie Campbell, Sir Anthony Durant, Mr. Michael Lord, Mr. David Nicholson, Mr. James Pawsey, Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock, Mrs. Bridget Prentice, Mr. Mike Watson and Dr. Tony Wright be members of the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration.—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]

Orders of the Day — Testbourne School

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]

Sir David Mitchell: I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and, through you, I thank Madam Speaker for having selected for the Adjournment debate tonight the subject of Testbourne school and its application for grant-maintained status.
I shall explain the background, take the Minister through events, ask him three questions, and seek certain assurances. It may be helpful if I start by saying that grant-maintained status is no discredit to a county education committee. Rather, it is a sign of success. Many county councils are proud of the fact that they have brought schools along to the point at which they can paddle their own canoes and manage their own affairs, with grant-maintained status. Indeed, almost all the schools that have moved in that direction have proved a great success.
Testbourne is a successful school: 97 per cent. of the pupils gained five or more GCSEs, more than half of those with five or more A to C grades. That puts the school in the top 20 in Hampshire. The governors and the head are seekers after excellence, and recognise that grant-maintained status can help them, enabling them to take decisions more quickly, free of red tape. It would also give the school control over its total budget, with all the advantages of local decision making. It would give the school scope to shop around for the best value for its needs and, in doing so, to have more to spend on the pupils. The head and the governors become directly accountable to the parents and the local community.
The idea of applying for grant-maintained status was given impetus by disagreement with the local education authority over funding. The disagreement was undoubtedly important, but it was more the trigger than the whole reason for the application.
The sequence of events is interesting and worrying. On 10 August the chairman of the local education authority confirmed that the school was correctly funded within the overall limits of the authority's budget. On 1 September the governors passed the first resolution required for grant-maintained status. Shortly afterwards, the local education authority mysteriously found an additional £10,000 for 1993–94 and a further £10,000 for 1994–95. It is rather odd that that should happen. I should add that a condition of that money being available was that the application for grant-maintained status would not proceed.
In Hampshire,11 secondary schools have successfully balloted for grant-maintained status. Curiously, none of those schools has been in the central educational division of Hampshire with its headquarters in Winchester. Three proposals have been defeated—all of them in the same division. I am pleased to see my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Malone) nodding his head. I know that he is also worried about the matter.
There would have been a fourth unsuccessful ballot if it had not been for the courage, dedication and determination of the governors, the headmaster and many of the staff. The ballot for grant-maintained status was won with a poll of 78 per cent.—64 per cent. in favour and 36 per cent. against.
Tonight I want to expose some of the methods used by the council to influence the decision of the parents. I do so not for Testbourne, but to prevent inappropriate campaigning against future applications. Does the Minister consider that what has occurred is in line with the code of recommended practice on local authority publicity—that it should be objective, balanced, informative and accurate?
At the end of October parents received a letter—paid for by public funds—that was signed by the county education officer and it made the following points. First, finance is the only reason for seeking grant-maintained status. I have partly dealt with that matter already. Secondly, a section set out a defence of the funding of the school and ended with the words:
It is difficult to escape the conclusion that the issue is not about finance but about management.
That is a direct slur on the head and the governing body with not a shred of evidence that management was at fault. The school that we are talking about is 20th in the success rate on exam results in Hampshire.
Thirdly, the letter further says that the school will be eligible to receive extra funding of at least £65,000 as part of a new management partnership scheme that the county is to introduce. However, that is simply not true. The scheme provides for the schools to have extra funds with which to buy services from the local education authority which were previously free.
Fourthly, the letter seeks to scare parents by suggesting that Testbourne will be unable to replace the specialist services provided by the county local education authority. I quote the letter:
At present, expert local services, many of which are very specialised and difficult to obtain in the local market, are there when they are needed. In the future GM schools will experience increasing problems in obtaining the current range of support, not only from the education department, but also, for example, from the county architect, the treasurer and the secretary (for legal advice).
Then there is the chilling inquiry:
Where would this leave Testbourne?
The fifth complaint in this letter is that there has been little time for detailed consultation with the local community. In fact, there has been more consultation in the case of this school than there has been in the case of almost any other school in Hampshire. The original resolution was on 4 September and the ballot was held on 4 November. Nobody can say that there was a shortage of time.
The letter ends by urging parents to vote against GM status.
In addition, there have been meetings and campaigns focusing on parents of children in primary schools. You might ask, Mr. Deputy Speaker, what on earth a primary school has to do with the issue. Testbourne school is fed by a series of primary schools. It is an interesting fact that 20 per cent. of the parents who voted have children at primary schools. The essence of the campaign with the primary schools was that if the proposal went through the county's funds would be robbed and the primary schools would suffer as a result. That is a pretty low form of campaign.
I have three questions for my hon. Friend the Minister. Is a letter such as I have described compatible with the proper provision of impartial advice from a senior county council official, or is it more in the nature of campaigning appropriate to elected politicians? Secondly, is my hon.


Friend aware that, far from losing out because of the alleged non-availability of LEA services in future, the school has already found that it can get most of the services currently provided by the LEA more economically elsewhere? It will get better value for money, so it will have more money to spend on the pupils. Thirdly, is it in order for officials who are not elected politicians to play on parents' fears of the unknown, to question the competence of governors, to question the competence of the senior management team, and to question financial competence?
I make a final plea. The county secretary, in a letter to the deputy chairman of governors, ends by saying:
Now that the result of the ballot is known we can look forward to the Secretary of State approving grant maintained status for the school. The County Council will do all it can to assist an easy transition.
We may feel like saying "Hear, hear." The House may be a little surprised to know that it has quietly been made known to the governors that the county proposes to use its statutory opportunity to object to the school's application for GMS going forward. That is in contradistinction to the county secretary saying that he looked forward to the Secretary of State approving grant-maintained status. I know what the appropriate word for that is, but I will not use it here.
The school needs time to settle down in a period of calm. I hope that the process can now go forward constructively, sensibly and helpfully with co-operation on all sides—from the county and from the Department. My special plea to the Minister is that, when the application lands on his desk, he will turn it round quickly so that the uncertainty is ended.
I have raised the matter tonight because, although I want to see the school launched calmly and quietly on calm waters, it is imperative that the matter should have been raised so that other schools do not have to go through the wringer as the board of management, the governors and the headmaster of Testbourne school have had to do.

Mr. Gerald Malone: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. Does the hon. Gentleman have the permission of the hon. Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell) and of the Minister to speak?

Sir David Mitchell: Yes.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Mr. Eric Forth): Yes.

Mr. Malone: I am grateful to my hon. Friends for giving me the opportunity to intervene briefly in this Adjournment debate.
I reiterate all that my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell) said about what has happened at the school. My reason for intervening is that a number of the parents who send their children to Testbourne are my constituents. I have had strong representations from them about the establishment of a level playing field when gaining grant-maintained status, and I will concentrate on that point.
I had always understood that officials at county level would ensure that a level playing field was established when such status was sought. Not only has this not been the case in Testbourne but in the case of a number of other schools a level playing field has not been established and

there has been partisan campaigning, and the instructions from the county education authority have not been adhered to by their officials.
I wonder whether we shall ever get to that stage unless my hon. Friend the Minister decides to take further action in the Bill which he has currently before the House. May I simply make the suggestion that the Minister will listen to what my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire North-West and I have said this evening and understand that we have a difficult time within county authorities where one would normally expect that Government initiatives would be welcome and not thwarted at every turn. This is not the case, and perhaps he will consider putting some mechanism that guarantees that a level playing field is established in all attempts to obtain grant-maintained status in schools throughout the country and not just in Hampshire. It would be very welcome to my hon. Friend and myself if Hampshire could start this and become a precedent.
I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has seen fit to be here for this important Adjournment debate, because one thing is certain: we are determined to make this policy stick of grant-maintained schools where the parents want them. We are determined, as a party and as a Government, to make it work and to allow it to be implemented in a way that parents want. This is at present being thwarted. I hope that my hon. Friend will assure us this evening that that will no longer be the case.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Mr. Eric Forth): In the traditional way, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell) on having obtained this important debate on what is both a specific and a general matter. The fact that our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State saw fit, very unusually for an Adjournment debate, to attend this debate illustrates the importance that he attaches to the matter that my hon. Friends the Members for Hampshire, North-West and for Winchester (Mr. Malone) have raised. I can do no more than to say that to reinforce the importance that both my right hon. Friend and I attach to this matter.
My hon. Friend and the schools in Hampshire and elsewhere need look no further than those schools which have already opted for grant-maintained status up and down the country. They are found usually to have been able to employ more teachers, almost inevitably have attracted more pupils, without exception have raised standards, have been found to have bought more books, and generally have been reported on more favourably when the inspectorate has looked at them.
That is proof enough that any assertion that schools lose out in some way with grant-maintained status is completely unproven. Anyone who wants to establish the truth of this matter need do no more than to ask heads and boards of governors of schools which have become grant-maintained. They need not take the word of a local education authority or even of myself. It would be far better for them to ask a grant-maintained school. If there is any difficulty about that, I should be only too delighted to give them a long list of names of such schools which would be only too happy to give their experiences.
My hon. Friend asked whether it was in order for local education authorities to question the competence of governors and head teachers. I should have thought that it would be rather odd for a local education authority suddenly to find fault with governors whom they had had a part in appointing and heads whom they had had a role in appointing at the very time when there was a question of debate and a ballot about that new status. It would be extremely odd, I should have thought, if that same education authority had not seen fit to take action about such governors, heads, and others before and yet suddenly found fault with them and questioned their competence, if that was the case. That strikes me as being somewhat bizarre behaviour, to say the least, and I should certainly have thought that most parents would see through it.
There must be some doubt about the attitude of the county council. I understood that Hampshire local education authority had claimed from time to time that it was not opposed to grant-maintained status in general. However, I have had a local newspaper report drawn to my attention in which Councillor Tim Macnamara said that, once what he called the initial cash bribe to GM schools had been withdrawn, even fewer would choose to go their own way. He was then alleged to have said:
I am disappointed when schools opt out and I think in the long term they are making a great mistake.
That does not sound like someone who is neutral about the possibility of GM status for schools. If the report is true, it gives the lie to the attitude of that individual, although it is not for me to say whether he is speaking for the whole authority.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West asked whether we could speed this latest application on its way. I was delighted to hear the news that, with a 64 per cent. positive ballot, Testbourne school has elected to become grant-maintained. There will now be a two-month period during which objections and comments can be sent to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. That is the normal procedure. He will then have to consider whether to approve, reject or modify the proposals.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West will understand that I cannot say anything tonight that would in any way prejudge the decision of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. However, I can assure my hon. Friend that we will give the proposals very careful consideration and my right hon. Friend will reach his decision as soon as possible after the end of the statutory notice period consistent with full and proper consideration of the issues raised to any objections that may be received.
We always aim to reach decisions as soon as possible. Although some are more complex than others, I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West that in the 12 months to May 1992 the average time for deciding grant-maintained proposals was four and a half months from the date of publication. Since May, the average time has been about three and three quarter months.
The fact that there are 107 GM applications awaiting decision shows an acceleration of interest in GM status by schools around the country. We are confident that there

will be about 600 GM schools operating or approved by next April and our projections suggest 1,500 in April 1994. We are well on our way.
Of the 107 applications now awaiting decision where there is not a linked LEA proposal, only two are more than three months old. When dealing with such applications, we are concerned to deal with them properly but expeditiously. Therefore, I assure my hon. Friend that the application will be dealt with as rapidly as is consistent with proper consideration and there should be no delays in the process.
With regard to any misleading information produced during the very important process of consideration of a ballot by parents at a school, I want to make it clear that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State takes a very serious view of the allegations. We will want to look carefully at what my hon. Friend said tonight and at any evidence that he may want to bring before us. As recently as 3 November. a letter was sent at the request of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to all LEAs reminding them and their officers of what, in the Secretary of State's view, are the proper responsibilities and duties of the parties involved when parents seek GM status for their children's school.
Each local authority has a particular duty to ensure that the arguments that they present for schools remaining under their control are presented in a way that does not mislead parents. My right hon. Friend and I regard it as intolerable that local education authorities or anyone else should try to scare parents by claiming falsely that by voting for GM status they will damage their children's education. It would also be totally unacceptable if authorities, as teachers' employers, sought to put pressure on staff to resist GM status by perhaps threatening job security or prospects as regrettably and shockingly has been reported from some parts of the country. We want to follow up all individual cases where we have received these reports to establish the truth of the matter and to see what further action can be taken.
I am aware of the letter of 29 October that my hon. Friend has brought to the attention of the House this evening, and I must confess that I am surprised, to put it mildly, at the tone of the letter from an authority that has apparently professed that it is not in principle against GM schools. Certainly the terms of the letter will have to be looked at very closely indeed.
In reply to what my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester asked, however, let me say that there will be provision in the Education Bill, now in Committee, to seek to ensure that in future we have the fairest and most even-handed possible treatment of GM ballots. In other words, it will seek to ensure that, at the very least, information is produced in an even-handed and impartial way, and that parents are given the maximum opportunity to consider the facts surrounding their school and the possibilities about GM status. That is our determination, and we will hope to find in that Bill the best way possible of ensuring just that.
Until the Bill receives the Royal Assent and becomes effective, however, we in the Department for Education are determined to remain vigilant and to use whatever powers are available to us to ensure that all local education authorities, and particularly their officers, act in a proper way with regard to their responsibilities, and to ensure that all information produced for parents who are making this very important decision about GM status for their school


is full, fair and proper and is not misleading in any way. I would expect all professionals involved in education in local authorities to make it their business to ensure that that sort of information is provided, and we would want to be told of any cases where that was not so.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has sought to make it absolutely clear over and over again that he is determined to ensure that GM schools will always receive funding commensurate with the additional responsibilities that they take on when they opt for GM status. Any suggestion that they will in some way suffer as a result of becoming GM is groundless and should be seen as such.
This is an important matter, and I am grateful to both my hon. Friends the Members for Hampshire, North-West and for Winchester for taking the trouble to raise it this evening. I am sure that not only will they have the gratitude of their constituents and of the parents of all their schoolchildren but that that gratitude will extend much more widely throughout Hampshire and the whole country, where the Secretary of State, the Minister of State

and I are well aware that widespread concern has surrounded many of the debates and the ballots on GM status for schools. It has often caused unnecessary bitterness and division simply because of misinformation and, regrettably, in some parts of the country, threats. That is deplorable and unacceptable conduct when we are talking about the education of our young people and children.
My earnest hope is that in future we will ensure that all involved with education, as well as my hon. Friends, can be confident that the information available is impartial, even-handed, fair, honest and truthful, and that we trust parents then to make a proper decision on the education of their children. I trust parents to do that, my hon. Friends trust parents to do that, and I hope that all local education authorities, councillors, officers and others will also trust them to do that.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes to Eleven o'clock.